Am 06.01.2011 um 00:29 schrieb Chris Muller:
> I don't mean to be dumb, but what is a "clean" package?  And, what is
> a Obsolete PackageInfo?
May I refer you to my explanation here?
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-October/154839.html

I took the name obsolete PackageInfo from Andreas' message #flushObsoletePackageInfos. I think it could be named better, though, flushNonMonticelloPackageInfos maybe?

> The purpose of this is to ensure we don't introduce new unwanted
> package-dependencies by, for example, adding a new class reference or
> something?
The purpose is to fix 6 of the 8 failing PackageDependencyTests in people's trunk images. (The 7th #testSUnitGUI is fixed by Graphics-bp.173 and Morphic-bp.505 in the inbox.)

The assumption behind this is that the update process should keep working. In my opinion people should neither be required to start from a new 4.2 image or do an agressive clean up, i.e. Smalltalk cleanUp: true.

In other words:
1. Take the latest trunk image: Squeak4.2-10779-alpha.image.
2. Update it.
3. Run PackageDependencyTest. You get 8 failures.
4. Execute this:
PackageOrganizer default
     unregisterPackageNamed: 'PackageInfo';
     unregisterPackageNamed: 'ToolBuilder';
     unregisterPackageNamed: 'Morphic-TrueType'
5. Run PackageDependencyTest. You are back to 1 failure. (Morphic now depends on Help-Squeak-TerseGuide.)

All I tried to do is to fix failing tests for the release. ;-)

I hope it is a little clearer now.

Cheers,
Bernhard

> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> 
>> On 05.01.2011, at 12:03, Bernhard Pieber wrote:
>> 
>>> It just occurred to me that the broken tests can be fixed if the following is put to the trunk as a postscript or preamble:
>>> 
>>> PackageOrganizer default
>>>      unregisterPackageNamed: 'PackageInfo';
>>>      unregisterPackageNamed: 'ToolBuilder';
>>>      unregisterPackageNamed: 'Morphic-TrueType'
>>> 
>>> That might be less controversial than forcing #flushObsoletePackageInfos on every image. Bert?
>> 
>> Maybe PackageDependencyTest should be made less whiny? By default it should not complain about those packages. You only want to ensure that a release image is clean, not every working image.
>> 
>> Perhaps unit tests aren't the best way to ensure a clean release. They're supposed to exercise code. ReleaseBuilder does some sanity checks already, maybe it should also check for clean packages.
>> 
>> - Bert -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20110106/c3e8aaa0/attachment.htm