Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Unix updates

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Unix updates

K. K. Subramaniam

On Wednesday 16 December 2009 11:47:50 pm José Luis Redrejo wrote:

> b) has caused the current delay in Debian, because I've been waiting for  6
> months, just in case anybody wants to help. I've already given up, so I
>  will upload the latest version before the end of this month. Before the
>  setting up of the collaborative project I kept the squeak-vm very updated
>  in Debian. In fact  I used to compile it from svn, to get the latest
>  patches, trying to make the images work with the newest plugins.
José,

What do you think of the new launcher scripts - squeak and squeak.sh? Do they
have enough flexibility for a distro packager?

Building plugins is currently painful, I agree. Perhaps there should be two
packages - squeakvm  (runtime) and squeakvm-dev (plugin development).

(branching this discussion to vm-dev)

Subbu
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Unix updates

Levente Uzonyi-2
 
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, José Luis Redrejo Rodríguez wrote:

> 2009/12/16 K. K. Subramaniam <[hidden email]>
>
>> On Wednesday 16 December 2009 11:47:50 pm José Luis Redrejo wrote:
>>
>>> b) has caused the current delay in Debian, because I've been waiting for
>>  6
>>> months, just in case anybody wants to help. I've already given up, so I
>>>  will upload the latest version before the end of this month. Before the
>>>  setting up of the collaborative project I kept the squeak-vm very
>> updated
>>>  in Debian. In fact  I used to compile it from svn, to get the latest
>>>  patches, trying to make the images work with the newest plugins.
>> José,
>>
>> What do you think of the new launcher scripts - squeak and squeak.sh? Do
>> they
>> have enough flexibility for a distro packager?
>>
>>
> squeak.sh has the same problem I've discussed once again in this list for
> the last four years: they are developer focused. I don't have anything
> against a developer view, but I want the squeak packages being end-user
> friendly. I'm very focused/biased on the educational uses of Squeak, and I
> don't think a console script is a good idea these days.
> I will integrate the changes these scripts have, so the one I use in the
> package can be called from a terminal, but I want to keep the gnome/kde and
> mime integration I added to the squeak-vm package.
Quoted from
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2009-August/003092.html
"Another script, squeak.sh, is intended to
launch Squeak from a menu.  It's begging for improvement."


Levente

>
>
>
>
>> Building plugins is currently painful, I agree. Perhaps there should be two
>> packages - squeakvm  (runtime) and squeakvm-dev (plugin development).
>>
>>
>
> The problem comes when new etoys images do need those plugins to work
> properly, and they are just experimental works somebody does and nobody
> maintains later.
>
>
>
>> (branching this discussion to vm-dev)
>>
>>
>
> I'm subscribed to vm-dev, so no cc'ed is needed.
>
> Regards
> José L.
>
>
>> Subbu
>>
>