On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>wrote:

> Wait, why are we talking about deploying a Squeak application here?
> We're talking about taking a blank machine and being able to build a
> Squeak VM on it.
>
> Tim's saying that you can't drive a C compiler from within the image
> on a machine for which no VM has ever been built, because there is no
> VM. ("Machine" here means a machine architecture, rather than, say, a
> fresh Ubuntu install.) You need a bootstrap. And
> configure/cmake/whatever happens to provide a very easy way to
> bootstrap to the first VM that can run an image that _can_ drive a C
> compiler to build the next gen VM.
>

Hm, ok.  That's a pretty rarely-occurring event to be putting a lot thought
into a framework for.  I'm doubtful such a framework would ever "work the
first time" on new platforms.

For building deployable packages on existing platforms, Igors words really
resonated with me.  I'll butt out now.  :)



>
> frank
>
> On 7 November 2013 20:45, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I don't think Tim's point stands anyway.  It assumes a blank OS on
> any
> > machine can use configure and cmake, but not squeak.  Can windows
> machines
> > run configure and cmake out of the box?
> >
> > Some sort of installation hurdle must be overcome, whether cygwin or
> > new-squeak-based-builder.
> >
> > People who are building VM's are a much smaller, more-technically capable
> > group than those who need to deploy something (e.g., an application).  If
> > you design your deployment system for the former, it think it won't be
> > useful to the latter.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> But Tim's point still stands, because deployment is the problem you
> >> solve after having solved the "build it" problem :)
> >>
> >> frank
> >>
> >> On 7 November 2013 20:13, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Deployment should be regarded a separate problem than building.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> One important thing to remember is coping with a first build on a new
> >> >> machine. Having a squeak app that can drive cc to build a vm would
> be very
> >> >> neat, but if you don't yet have a working vm for a device you could
> be in
> >> >> trouble.
> >> >> An advantage of the cmake process is that it bypasses that issue.
> >> >> Actually running the configure on the target machine means you get
> >> >> (hopefully!) accurate results when querying facilities. There is
> also some
> >> >> benefit in a production environment in being able to pass a 'normal'
> build
> >> >> job to someone else without having to find a squeak buildomatic
> cognizant
> >> >> person.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20131107/ac74d9e8/attachment.htm