This is not exactly the answer to your question, but I prefer the second 
(seaside3.st). I have some seaside images that I do stuff in from time 
to time, the most recent being a 4.3 image. I was a bit amused by recent 
indications on this list that seaside was not loading in the latest 
Squeak and thought, there's another reason to stay with what works. If, 
however, the urge to get Seaside on the very latest Squeak overcame me, 
I would much prefer trying to debug the second rather than the first.

Cheers,
Bob

On 2/25/13 8:56 AM, Tobias Pape wrote:
> Am 25.02.2013 um 14:26 schrieb radoslav hodnicak <rh at 4096.sk>:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>> PS: Off-topic but IMHO important. I started replying to this email
>>      7:30 AM and got stuck at the installation instructions and now
>>      I send this mail at 1 PM;
>>        I, sadly, have to conclude: Installing a proper development
>>      image for Seaside on Squeak is still a mess.
>>        I was the one who provided the Squeak Seaside image for Squeak 4.3
>>      but currently I see myself completely unable to set up Seaside for
>>      Squeak 4.4.
>>      Just some random notes to relieve me:
>>      • Installing Seaside need Metacello.
>>      • Then somehow trying to install Seaside: do it wrong and Boom: Zinc is missing
>>        and completely unavailable for Squeak
>>      • Bootstrapping metacello needs Omnibrowser basics
>>      • The Omnibrowser verison for Squeak as in the ConfigurationOfOmnibrowser is
>>        completely broken. Remember the not working buttons? still there.
>>      • First installing OmniBrowser via Coiln’s script and then loading anything via
>>        Metacello that depends on OB: boom
>>      • First installing Omnibrowser via Metacello, then loading via Colin’s script:
>>        no boom, but conflicting Classes. need to remove OB-Morphic manually...
>>      • at _that_ point I gave up.
>>
>> I haven't tried this recently but Lukas' scripts for building images at https://github.com/renggli/builder/tree/master/scripts don't use Metacello and I have used this method to load Seaside in the past (replacing Gofer calls with Installer).
>>
>> rado
> Well, there is
> 	https://github.com/renggli/builder/blob/master/scripts/seaside3-metacello.st
> which explicitely _does_ use Metacello and
> 	https://github.com/renggli/builder/blob/master/scripts/seaside3.st
> which explicitely _does not_ use Metacello.
>
> If you were an “image distributor”, ie, someone who hands images to other developers,
> which one would you take? Which resulting image is easier to update? Which script is easier
> to maintain? (Sorry the many questions, not meant to be offensive :) )
>
> Best
> 	-Tobias
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20130225/7620cf73/attachment.htm