another cool thing is that we are going to be able to distribute a Pharo release with the correct repository as default (already added in Monticello Browser)
So, in Pharo1.0 we add by default the repo Pharo10MetacelloRepository for Pharo1.1 we add Pharo11MetacelloRepository. Then, when someone wants to install something, just need to browse the repository, select what he wants, load it and then just evaluage ConfigurationOfXXX load. Cheers mariano On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < [email protected]> wrote: > Yes, it is similar to Andreas post. We were thinking about this since a lot > of time but without making progress. Now, with the post of Andreas, we > remembered about it. And I am happy both proposal are similar. Little > differences: > > - They want one only package for all confs. We want one package per > configuration. Like we did in MetacelloRepository. I think it is easier to > manage, less conflicts (imagine if everybody is commiting in the same > package) and easier to browse. > > - They didn't say how to solve the problems with multiple version. What > will they do when they have squeak 5 ? use the same package ? another one ? > other repo ? > > - How do they know which version of the configuration works on the current > version of squeak? So...I browse ConfigurationOfFFI, how do I know that the > version 1.1.4 is the one that works in Squeak 4.1 and that the 1.2 is the > one that works in Squeak 4.2 ? Of course, you can put such information > inside the configuration, maybe in #description: or similar...but in all > cases, you have to enter and browse the conf. We don't want that. > > - We wanted to define a standard way to load the packages on such > repository: just send the message load. > > I still would like to hear the opinion of the developers that have most of > the configurations. We are doing this together. If you don't agree, it will > not succeed. > > What we want in summary is: is a repository of projects tested that works > for a particular release of Pharo and that they all get installed in the > same way. And that such installation can be executed any time in future. > > Cheers > > Mariano > > > 2010/5/16 Janko Mivšek <[email protected]> > > Hi Stef, >> >> You obviously didn't read Andreas post. Please do it, it is really good >> idea, which includes Metacello, it is simple and very similar to >> Mariano's proposal. This means that a common solution for both Squeak >> and Pharo is around a corner and that's what we all want! >> >> Best regards >> Janko >> >> On 16. 05. 2010 18:26, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >> >> >> I think Andreas' recent post to squeak-dev is most cogent o this topic: >> > >> > Eliot believe me we talk a lot of metacello since at least ESUG last >> year :) >> > We support and appreciate dale's effort (even when people bashed >> metacello a while ago). >> > So I think that we have a solution that looks ok for us. >> > We started to see how we can manage pharoCore to produce pharoMini using >> metacello >> > and what hamper us to remove more aggressively package is the speed of >> load monticello packages. >> > >> > Stef >> >> >> -- >> Janko Mivšek >> AIDA/Web >> Smalltalk Web Application Server >> http://www.aidaweb.si >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
