Metacello as the system evolves... (Fwd from Seaside-General: Which image for deployment?)
Locked
Metacello as the system evolves... (Fwd from Seaside-General: Which image for deployment?)
 
Administrator
|
The following is a conversation about not being able to load Seaside into Pharo 1.2 via Metacello (from the Seaside-general list). Shouldn't symbolic versions in Metacello have solved this problem? There should be different package versions tagged stable for each system (1.2.x, 1.3...) as necessary, no? It seems there's not much difference between:
Pharo 1.2 vs. Pharo 1.3 and Pharo 1.2 vs. Squeak 4.2 Doesn't symbolic versions finally allow us to have *one* configuration per project that will load into any Squeak/Pharo/etc? As a Metacello user, it would be comforting to know that there is only one configuration, or needing to find the /right/ one replaces one problem (dependencies) with another.
Cheers,
Sean |
Re: Metacello as the system evolves... (Fwd from Seaside-General: Which image for deployment?)
|
|
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email]> wrote: The following is a conversation about not being able to load Seaside into No. #symbolic versions DOES solve the problem in the general way. But it is up to the ConfigurationOf maitainer to assure that. If ConfigurationOfSeaside doesn't load is not because of Metacello. Is because nobody fix ConfigurationOfSeaside and #stable to make it work. Cheers mariano There should be different -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com |
Re: Metacello as the system evolves... (Fwd from Seaside-General: Which image for deployment?)
|
|
In reply to this post by Sean P. DeNigris
sean
can you quote the name of the person who wrote the mail? Stef On May 31, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > The following is a conversation about not being able to load Seaside into > Pharo 1.2 via Metacello (from the Seaside-general list). Shouldn't symbolic > versions in Metacello have solved this problem? There should be different > package versions tagged stable for each system (1.2.x, 1.3...) as necessary, > no? It seems there's not much difference between: > Pharo 1.2 vs. Pharo 1.3 > and > Pharo 1.2 vs. Squeak 4.2 > > Doesn't symbolic versions finally allow us to have *one* configuration per > project that will load into any Squeak/Pharo/etc? As a Metacello user, it > would be comforting to know that there is only one configuration, or needing > to find the /right/ one replaces one problem (dependencies) with another. > > > >>> * loading Seaside via Metacello into Pharo (although I got an error in >>> Pharo >>> 1.2.2-12353) >> >> That is a known problem (see >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside-dev/2011-May/004786.html >> and http://www.iam.unibe.ch/pipermail/moose-dev/2011-May/008309.html). >> Some configurations that the Seaside Metacello Configuration depens on >> have been updated to Pharo 1.3 breaking all users of older versions of >> Pharo. >> >> I was told that the (Pharo?) Metacello configurations do not support >> loading into older images. So people that want to use a stable version >> of Pharo (< 1.3) cannot load Seaside with Metacello anymore. There are >> various solutions: >> >> - Move to (unstable) Pharo 1.3, use a maybe broken Seaside, and load >> the code easily with Metacello (this is what Pharo wants us to do) >> - Fix the configurations of Pharo or write our own configurations (no >> clue how that could be done) >> - Stay with (stable) Pharo and use Gofer scripts (this is what I do, >> works pretty reliable and painless) >> >> In either case you should complain in the Pharo list, there is >> something broken in the process. Personally, I am fedup with these >> forced updates and will stick with Pharo 1.2 until there is a really >> compelling reason to move forward. >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Metacello-as-the-system-evolves-Fwd-from-Seaside-General-Which-image-for-deployment-tp3564163p3564163.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
Re: Metacello as the system evolves... (Fwd from Seaside-General: Which image for deployment?)
|
|
In reply to this post by Sean P. DeNigris
It also means that we should find somebody that do not piss on metacello and maintain a version for Seaside.
Because we cannot manage complex system with a package management system and there is a cost in that but benefit too. Sad but true. Stef On May 31, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > The following is a conversation about not being able to load Seaside into > Pharo 1.2 via Metacello (from the Seaside-general list). Shouldn't symbolic > versions in Metacello have solved this problem? There should be different > package versions tagged stable for each system (1.2.x, 1.3...) as necessary, > no? It seems there's not much difference between: > Pharo 1.2 vs. Pharo 1.3 > and > Pharo 1.2 vs. Squeak 4.2 > > Doesn't symbolic versions finally allow us to have *one* configuration per > project that will load into any Squeak/Pharo/etc? As a Metacello user, it > would be comforting to know that there is only one configuration, or needing > to find the /right/ one replaces one problem (dependencies) with another. > > > >>> * loading Seaside via Metacello into Pharo (although I got an error in >>> Pharo >>> 1.2.2-12353) >> >> That is a known problem (see >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside-dev/2011-May/004786.html >> and http://www.iam.unibe.ch/pipermail/moose-dev/2011-May/008309.html). >> Some configurations that the Seaside Metacello Configuration depens on >> have been updated to Pharo 1.3 breaking all users of older versions of >> Pharo. >> >> I was told that the (Pharo?) Metacello configurations do not support >> loading into older images. So people that want to use a stable version >> of Pharo (< 1.3) cannot load Seaside with Metacello anymore. There are >> various solutions: >> >> - Move to (unstable) Pharo 1.3, use a maybe broken Seaside, and load >> the code easily with Metacello (this is what Pharo wants us to do) >> - Fix the configurations of Pharo or write our own configurations (no >> clue how that could be done) >> - Stay with (stable) Pharo and use Gofer scripts (this is what I do, >> works pretty reliable and painless) >> >> In either case you should complain in the Pharo list, there is >> something broken in the process. Personally, I am fedup with these >> forced updates and will stick with Pharo 1.2 until there is a really >> compelling reason to move forward. >> > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Metacello-as-the-system-evolves-Fwd-from-Seaside-General-Which-image-for-deployment-tp3564163p3564163.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
Re: Metacello as the system evolves... (Fwd from Seaside-General: Which image for deployment?)
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Sure, I wrote the original post, and the response was from Lukas. Sean
Cheers,
Sean |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |