Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

Do we want this for Pharo 1.2 and futures?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

5 messages Options

Mariano Martinez Peck

Do we want this for Pharo 1.2 and futures?

In Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 I used to include certain files in addition to the .image and .changes. These files were: changelog.txt, installScript.st and packages.txt
So...what do you think? are they (still) useful ? if true, then we should add it to hudson. If not, we just ignore it.

Thanks

Mariano

Guillermo Polito

Re: [Pharo-users] Do we want this for Pharo 1.2 and futures?

I've always ignored them ;)

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:

In Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 I used to include certain files in addition to the .image and .changes. These files were: changelog.txt, installScript.st and packages.txt
So...what do you think? are they (still) useful ? if true, then we should add it to hudson. If not, we just ignore it.

Thanks

Mariano

Mariano Martinez Peck

Re: [Pharo-users] Do we want this for Pharo 1.2 and futures?

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've always ignored them ;)

Me too.
For me, we can remove them. But I am wondering if other people find it useful...maybe newcomers? (this is why I also included pharo-users mailing list)

cheers

mariano

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[hidden email]> wrote:

In Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 I used to include certain files in addition to the .image and .changes. These files were: changelog.txt, installScript.st and packages.txt
So...what do you think? are they (still) useful ? if true, then we should add it to hudson. If not, we just ignore it.

Thanks

Mariano

Miguel Cobá

Re: [Pharo-users] Do we want this for Pharo 1.2 and futures?

In reply to this post by Mariano Martinez Peck

installScript definitely yes.

changelog is useful if it is accurate and maintained else better avoid
it. Packages I never found a reason for it to be in the zip. not very
useful for newbies because they don't now what a package is based only
in the name and for a experimented user, they can find the packages
directly in the image.

So, I think that they won't be missing.

Cheers

El sáb, 12-03-2011 a las 20:13 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió:
> In Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 I used to include certain files in addition to
> the .image and .changes. These files were: changelog.txt,
> installScript.st and packages.txt
> So...what do you think? are they (still) useful ? if true, then we
> should add it to hudson. If not, we just ignore it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mariano

--
Miguel Cobá
http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz
http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

Mariano Martinez Peck

Re: [Pharo-users] Do we want this for Pharo 1.2 and futures?

Discussion finished.
Marcus, can we add in the PharoDev images a installScript.st with the code that was executed to generate the image? yes, the ConfigurationOfPharo load....

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Miguel Cobá <[hidden email]> wrote:

installScript definitely yes.

changelog is useful if it is accurate and maintained else better avoid
it. Packages I never found a reason for it to be in the zip. not very
useful for newbies because they don't now what a package is based only
in the name and for a experimented user, they can find the packages
directly in the image.

So, I think that they won't be missing.

Cheers

El sáb, 12-03-2011 a las 20:13 +0100, Mariano Martinez Peck escribió:

> In Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 I used to include certain files in addition to
> the .image and .changes. These files were: changelog.txt,
> installScript.st and packages.txt
> So...what do you think? are they (still) useful ? if true, then we
> should add it to hudson. If not, we just ignore it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mariano

--
Miguel Cobá
http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz
http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com