baseline and version

Hi!

I experienced a number of times the following situation:
  - loading a baseline works fine
  - loading a version produced by the toolbox says some definition are missing ("This package depends on the following classes: ...")

Am I the only one?
Is a baseline loaded in a different way than a version?

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

Alex,

do you specify the dependencies between packages? because that should be one thing altering the loading order...  I've only experienced this problem when I didn't specify that well.

Guille

> do you specify the dependencies between packages? because that should be one thing altering the loading order...  I've only experienced this problem when I didn't specify that well.

Ok, so I am not the only one.
But I just wanted that I find that strange that the baseline loads and not the version that has been generated from the toolbox

Alexandre

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

On 02/19/2011 12:59 PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
I'm always interested in specific examples of "incorrect behavior" ...
my attitude is that if _you_ think it is wrong then it is wrong ...
whether or not you made the mistake:) ... in other words, what you have
described is either a bug in Metacello or a bug in the validator or a
bug in the documentation or a bug in the fundamental operation of
Metacello, but it is a bug ...

So specific cases help me figure out which is which and do something to
fix the problem ...

I would guess that the baseline works fine, because you are loading the
latest versions of the packages (upon which you have based the
dependencies), in the version "produced by the toolbox" the mcz files
versions are based on the versions that you have in your image which
must not be the latest mcz files and apparently do not have the same
dependency structure...

If you want to try to reproduce a particular problem, the printing out
the loadDirective produced by each load is very useful. The printString
from each of the following expressions:


   (ConfigurationOfXXX project version: #bleedingEdge) load

and

   (ConfigurationOfXXX project version: #stable) load

(assuming you've defined #stable) would be enough information for me to
identify what is going on.  If you are seeing a lot of problems, it may
be a good idea to get in the habit of doing a printIt instead of doIt
when evaluating load expressions so that the loadDirective will be
printed in case something unexpected happens ...

Dale

My experience was based on producing a version from the default baseline.
I cannot reproduce this problem because Doru removed some of the problematic packages (cf. his email titled "help wanted").

> I would guess that the baseline works fine, because you are loading the latest versions of the packages (upon which you have based the dependencies), in the version "produced by the toolbox" the mcz files versions are based on the versions that you have in your image which must not be the latest mcz files and apparently do not have the same dependency structure...

From what you said in one of your previous email, I always produce the version (via the toolbox of course) with the latest version loaded.

Excellent! I did not know

Alexandre

>
> Dale
>

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