siguctua at gmail.com
Wed Sep 2 23:37:22 UTC 2009
2009/9/2 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> Ask yourself, do you want to be in place of such pool soul?
i meant "poor soul".
> Yes. Absolutely, 100%, yes. If that is *actually* an issue (which it has
> never been in the past) I'd be happy to include the VMMaker MCZ that was
> used in the source release.
> The thing that I *don't* want is to ship versions of VMs where an end-user
> needs to figure out whether she is going to use "SqueakVM-Win32-ar.467" or
> "SqueakVM-Win32-dtl.468". These numbering schemes make no sense whatseover
> outside of this tiny community.
> I like schemes that are roughly in sync with the image release. That way a
> user who has a Squeak-3.5 image has a chance to figure out that in order to
> run it they probably need a Squeak-3.5.x VM.
which didn't helped me last time when i tried to run closure-enabled
image using old non-closure VM. Its simply refusing
to run, saying that i'm having a wrong file format (blah blah whatever).
Partly, because after unpacking the archive, i getting a Squeak.exe ,
not a Squeak.X.y.z.exe and from that point its
really easy to mix thing up.
In reverse (when VM is much more recent than image) i doubt that we
(and consequently - noobs) have any problems, because
VM's always trying to play nicely with old images.
A command-line option ,like
which prints an extensional information about VM would help a lot.
concerning keeping VM/Image versions roughly in sync.. well , it maybe
having some sense for a outsiders and newbies,
but admit that for developers it doing contrary - adds a bit confusion :)
> - Andreas
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Vm-dev