[Squeakfoundation] SqueakMap in the image (was Re: Incorporating removals & KCP stuff)

[goran.krampe at bluefish.se]

Hi Daniel and all!

Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
> [Add SM into 3.6 using update stream to do package installation]
> Sounds good to me. BTW, you mentioned the current update stream seems to
> be leading to Minimal. I think that at least for 3.6 it should be
> leading us towards Basic.

Well, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. And these things are hard to
reason about. What I meant is that the update stream feeds updates that
is producing the Minimal *image*. BUT... with the packages installed
turning it defacto into Basic.

If we said that the update stream is aiming to produce Basic then...
What does that mean? Does it mean that we aren't "packageifying" the
stuff that we intend to have in Basic? Nope. PackageInfo is a package.
And so is SM.

IMHO this means we are in fact working towards Minimal when we consider
the *image* (without installed packages) but if we consider *with
packages* then we surely are aiming for Basic.

Whatever - I hope you see my point.

> [packages for Basic, like DVS, SAR]
> IMO Basic should include PackageInfo, because it is a useful unit of
> filing stuff in and out that (a very lightweight replacement for one

Definitely. And btw, I have come to realize that PackageInfo and SMCard
(future SMPackage) don't necessarily map "one to one". This is
important.

> function changesets get abused for). DVS and SAR I am less sure about.
> In particular, DVS seems like it might be temporary, in the sense that
> the Monticello stuff will replace it as infrastructure. OTOH, maybe I'm
> just faliing to realize the benefits of how easy it is to issue an
> update that installs/uninstalls well-packaged stuff. Which, BTW, we need
> to define and start paying attention to - stuff that doesn't uninstall
> cleanly is badly packaged, and should not be included in Basic.

That I agree with. Even though I personally will not give uninstall much
thought for a long time. :-)

Including DVS (which currently uses the same internal code as Monticello
I think) would be good to make sure people move over to that kind of
fileout much more suitable for packages.
 
> Daniel

regards, Göran