Dependencies in Monticello?

Dear all,

I am wondering whether some of you use dependencies in Monticello?  
Are you happy with it?
Seaside on Monticello does not seem to make use of them... Is there a  
reason why ?

I think that Damien is using them...

Alexandre

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

> I am wondering whether some of you use dependencies in Monticello?

Yes. I guess it is quite common for (commerical) projects to have an
empty root package that depends on some packages that are all copied
into one repository. See for example Magritte-All for Magritte,
Pier-All for Pier and OB-Umbrella for OmniBrowser.

> Are you happy with it?

For what it promises it works well. It does not work well for code
distribution, because you everybody wants a different package
configuration.

> Seaside on Monticello does not seem to make use of them... Is there a
> reason why ?

That's also the reason why Seaside doesn't use them. For example
Seaside just depends on *a* web-server, not a specific one.

Lukas

--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:41 -0300, Bergel, Alexandre wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am wondering whether some of you use dependencies in Monticello?  
> Are you happy with it?
> Seaside on Monticello does not seem to make use of them... Is there a  
> reason why ?
>
> I think that Damien is using them...
>
I used it for a while. But they were very annoying when applied
to certain packages. If you use two packages which need a third
package together you are in trouble. It is too easy to downgrade
a dependent package without noticing.

After that I went to an empty top package which has dependencies
to each of the packages it needs. This works quite well but is
annoying, too. If you are deploying based on such a top package
you are forced to save a new top package version whenever one
of the dependent package changes.

I wanted to use MonticelloConfigurations but there is no support
for having directories as repositories (but I got a patch for
it). But this looks like a good approach.

Nowadays I do not use any monticello dependencies. For deployment
I hardcode the versions into a Installer script.

Hope this helps,

Norbert

Thanks Norbert and Lukas,

> Hope this helps,

It does :-)

Alexandre

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

On 9 janv. 08, at 17:52, Norbert Hartl wrote:


Beside some of the above mentionned issues, I also faced another one  
when developping MetaclassTalk.
I do change class definitions by introducing new metaclasses so I  
needed extending Monticello to load MetaclassTalk. Having a dependency  
on a package that modifies Monticello doesnot work. So, I used an  
installer that loads the latest versions of my packages so I don't  
need to hardwire versions. Its code is available on http://www.squeaksource.com/MetaclassTalk.html

Noury
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Noury Bouraqadi - Enseignant/Chercheur
Responsable de l'enseignement de l'informatique
ARMINES - Ecole des Mines de Douai - Dept. I.A.
http://vst.ensm-douai.fr/noury

European Smalltalk Users Group Board
http://www.esug.org
------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 9, 2008 5:52 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Nowadays I do not use any monticello dependencies. For deployment
> I hardcode the versions into a Installer script.

Have you looked at Universes?  If so, what made you decide not to use
them?  Is there something missing/also annoying?

On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 19:14 +0100, Jason Johnson wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008 5:52 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Nowadays I do not use any monticello dependencies. For deployment
> > I hardcode the versions into a Installer script.
>
> Have you looked at Universes?  If so, what made you decide not to use
> them?  Is there something missing/also annoying?
>
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean using the online universe
or maintaining my own? In either case it isn't practical for me.

- I can't use online universe. On my production system I have to
  have control over the versions being installed.
- I wouldn't use my own universe. What could I gain by adding
  the complexity of universe.

This is only a short answer. If you like I can elaborate on this.
I use universe only for first time installs. For anything else
it is rather useless for me. Most prominent use case for me is
to keep my squeak-dev image up to date :)

Norbert

Well, I just thought using a Universe would be simpler then some kind
of configuration script.  Then when you decide a new version is ready
for prime time you can press a couple of buttons in the Universe
browser instead of updating a script.

Though it sounds like this isn't simpler for you, and that was what I
was really wondering in my query.  I wonder if something could be done
to change that and make it easy enough to do that it would be a
productivity boost for you.

On Jan 13, 2008 9:18 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sun, 2008-01-13 at 21:48 +0100, Jason Johnson wrote:
> Well, I just thought using a Universe would be simpler then some kind
> of configuration script.  Then when you decide a new version is ready
> for prime time you can press a couple of buttons in the Universe
> browser instead of updating a script.
>
> Though it sounds like this isn't simpler for you, and that was what I
> was really wondering in my query.  I wonder if something could be done
> to change that and make it easy enough to do that it would be a
> productivity boost for you.

I don't think universe is the right tool for development because:

- it is tedious to create a new version of a package. Doing that
  frequently will become annoying
- If you change 3 packages you need to do this 3 times
- I don't even know how I could update a headless image with
  universe
- I know pretty well the depencies of my packages

If I understand MCConfigurations right it is the tool that does
exactly this. You can take a snapshot of the packages by pressing
one button. With the .mcm file you can update the images of your
co-developer as well as a headless image.

The focus of universe is more of a "release" system not a developer
system.

Norbert

2008/1/14, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]>:
That's right, but it's two butons. netstyle.ch has made a Continous
Integration server based on MCM.

Cheers
Philippe

> The focus of universe is more of a "release" system not a developer
> system.
>
> Norbert
>
>
>
>