I don't have any reasons other than intuition.  Just thinking about it
-- with Celeste we have a standard window, a domain model and access
to SMTP.  Which of these would be difficult in 4.4?  Nothing comes to
mind.


On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:10 AM, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/12, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Celeste was always a cool example and it sounds like it wouldn't be
>> much to get it going in 4.4.  I hope someone will do it.
>
> Chris,
>
> what are the reasons why you thing that porting wouldn't be a big issue.
>
> Because it relies on libraries which did not change much from 4.1 to 4.4?
>
> Do you remember what it needs as prerequisite?
>
> --Hannes
>
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. <jecel at merlintec.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hannes,
>>>
>>>> Do you have Celeste in 4.4? How did you load it?
>>>
>>> I am typing this in a 4.1 image (latest update #9957). It has been a
>>> long time since I loaded Celeste into this image. For the previous
>>> images I had always used SqueakMap, but for this one it seems I used the
>>> Monticello Browser to load packages Network-ar.69, Scamper-kfr.12 and
>>> Network-Mail Reader-ls.21 from http://www.squeaksource.com/Celeste and
>>> http://www.squeaksource.com/Scamper but I might be interpreting the
>>> Monticello Browser gui wrong.
>>>
>>> There are some small patches that I have written myself, but they are
>>> horrible hacks just to deal with very broken emails I have received.
>>> They are always spam, so I have not wasted my time doing it right.
>>>
>>> -- Jecel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>