On 6 December 2012 13:24, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 05:25:56AM -0200, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>
>> On 12/5/12 8:25 PM, "Frank Shearar" <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >  A SqueakCore image is available at http://ftp.squeak.org/4.4
>>
>> No, such directory is empty.
>> The last one is in
>> http://ftp.squeak.org/4.3alpha/SqueakCore4.3alpha-11722.zip
>>
>> And could update to last trunk using the regular VM , not the CogVM.
>> With this , many handicapped hardware as my own G4's and Pentium 3's could
>> run it
>
> Edgar, thanks for the reminder.
>
> I think that we should do two things:
>
> 1) Save the final release image as image format 6504 prior to release.
> This is done by resaving the image from an interpreter VM, which makes
> it usable by a wider range of VMs including some very old interpreter VMs
> that may still be in service (e.g. Edgars old Mac that does not have
> an updated interpreter VM available).

Given that our CI runs on RHell, with its attendant library problems,
is it possible to use the InterpreterVM build's output in the
SqueakTrunkOnInterpreter job?

If so, we could adjust SqueakTrunkOnInterpreter's job/script slightly
to do the above automatically, couldn't we?

frank

> 2) In the image, get rid of the SmalltalkImage>>okayToSave warning. This
> was originally added to protect users with older interpreter VMs from
> saving their images with Cog, rendering them unreadable on the older VM.
>
> I think, but am not certain, that the okayToSave warning has outlived
> its usefulness. It also presents a serious problem because if we save the
> release image in 6504 format (as per above), then new users will see a
> confusing message the first time they save their image under Cog. The
> warning is factually incorrect, because it says 'Images saved under Cog
> cannot be opened on an interpreter again!' which is true if and only
> if the image had been saved from an obsolete interpreter VM. In other
> words, for most users today the warning message is incorrect, confusing,
> and wrong.
>
> Comments?
>
> Dave
>
>