[Vm-dev] VM packaging for Cog transition

[Bert Freudenberg]

On 09.11.2010, at 18:13, K. K. Subramaniam wrote:

> On Monday 08 Nov 2010 5:01:35 pm Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> The two new ones should be in one source archive, IMHO. At build time
>> either cog or stack VM would be selected depending on the machine's
>> architecture. What should the name be for those binaries? Just use
>> "squeakvm-cog" even if it's the Stack VM because it can run the same
>> images?
> For some time, we need to build both VMs and select it at run-time in the 
> launcher script. This shouldn't be a big issue on Linux. See
> 
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2010-October/005619.html

That is agreed upon. There will be an interpreter, plus a VM capable of running a cog image.

I was asking how to name that cog/stack vm binary. I don't see a reason to have both cog and stack VMs on one architecture officially. On x86 it would be cog, on everything else stack VM for now. The question is, should that difference be reflected in the binary name? Is it desirable to have both cog and stack VMs installed next to each other? Would people be confused if there is no "cog" binary on their architecture?

- Bert -