cant squeak map

hi there,
I've updated an image from server and it become unable to load stuff from squeak
map. Looks it reachs a endless recursion about MIME
cheers,

sebastian


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Sebastian Sastre wrote:
> hi there,
> I've updated an image from server and it become unable to load stuff from squeak
> map. Looks it reachs a endless recursion about MIME

I can take a look, but didn't we plan to remove SM support anyways?

Are you using the core or dev image? Did you load any additional packages?

Michael

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> I can take a look, but didn't we plan to remove SM support anyways?
>
> Are you using the core or dev image? Did you load any
> additional packages?
>
> Michael
>
hi Michael,
I've used a 243, updated from server and then tried to SM a couple of packages.
I found cool to put in review package installation methods for pharo. What will
be the pharo way to install packages?
sebastian


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Sebastian Sastre wrote:

> I've used a 243, updated from server and then tried to SM a couple of packages.

Please try a 248.

> I found cool to put in review package installation methods for pharo. What will
> be the pharo way to install packages?

Through Monticello I guess. Most people are using SqueakSource.com for
their packages.

Michael


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

But they are not the same. Universe, monticello and SM are different things.

For example, MC doesn't support dependences. Universo do. I compare those three to something like this:

MC: CVS, SVN, GIT or any other Source Version Control. This may be used for the developers of the source code. It may include stable and non stable code.

Universe: something like apt-get and repositories. It manage dependencies. There are the most common, new and used packages. It may be used by a user of a package. Someone that just want to download a stable version and with all the dependencies of a package.

SM: Like a repository where there are all the packages that has been in squeak from bigging.

Cheers,

Mariano




_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
> But they are not the same. Universe, monticello and SM are different
> things.

I agree, and we will definitely have Universes.

Me, personally, don't use SqueakMap at all anymore, but if people would
like to keep it in Pharo I'm fine with it.

Just MTC

Michael

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Michael Rueger pravi:
> Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:

>> But they are not the same. Universe, monticello and SM are different
>> things.

> I agree, and we will definitely have Universes.
>
> Me, personally, don't use SqueakMap at all anymore, but if people would
> like to keep it in Pharo I'm fine with it.

But it is important that Universes UI is then "uplifted" to be as usable
as SqueakMap is. This tool is namely aimed for end users, not developers
and specially newbies need to have as simple as possible way to load
software.

SM is close to that, Universes not. Universes has the  biggest advantage
to load all prerequisite packages, but lacks other things like easy
search for packages, etc.

Best regards
Janko


--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Yes yes  yes but we do not use SM since years.
I cannot load one single package without breaking my image.
If you read the comments of a package you should not load it because  
most
of the time people entered that the code may work.
Then the version identification is often obsolete.

So you may be able to load SM in pharo but we will not use it as a way  
to manage code.
Sorry guys. clean SM first if you want it to be a credible alternative.

Stef

On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:18 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

thanks thanks thanks!
a loader for XXI century please!
and with an UI designed for human beings this time
sebastian
 


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Sebastian Sastre wrote:

> and with an UI designed for human beings this time

What do you mean? You're saying there human beings on this list? ;-)

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Michael

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

On Mar 12, 2009, at 00:21 , Sebastian Sastre wrote:

> thanks thanks thanks!
> a loader for XXI century please!
> and with an UI designed for human beings this time

That would be great, yes.

Do you volunteer to work on this project? We need more manpower to do  
stuff like this...

Cheers,
Adrian



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> But it is important that Universes UI is then "uplifted" to be as usable
>> as SqueakMap is. This tool is namely aimed for end users, not developers
>> and specially newbies need to have as simple as possible way to load
>> software.
>>
>> SM is close to that, Universes not. Universes has the  biggest advantage
>> to load all prerequisite packages, but lacks other things like easy
>> search for packages, etc.


Have you tried the OB-based universe browser? It's included in all
squeak-dev images. You can search for packages by name or by category
or by status (installed, upgradable...). It's certainly not perfect
but it works ok for me. If you have fixes, please commit them directly
to the repository.


> Totally agree. I would love having search option in universe or dependencies
> management in SM haha.

There is a search option in OB-universe

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Hi!

(being the creator of SM I can't resist this thread on Pharo-list...)

Yes, I am cross-posting, so sue me.

Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Yes yes  yes but we do not use SM since years.
> I cannot load one single package without breaking my image.
> If you read the comments of a package you should not load it because  
> most
> of the time people entered that the code may work.
> Then the version identification is often obsolete.

The above is not really a problem with SM "as a tool" but with the
contents of SM. And as I predicted a few years back, SS (Squeaksource)
and PU (package universes) are indeed competing with SM and would (as it
did) cause us to get a fragmentation. I am not blaiming anyone, but I do
see that as the primary cause of "data rot".

Since a lot of projects use SCM hosting as available on SS they don't
bother taking the extra step in keeping entries at SM fresh.
Understandable but still a pity we couldn't create some harmony there.

PU was a clear "fork" of SM (not the codebase but the use case) adding
dependencies. I still think it was sad that people couldn't instead help
out in SM making it better.

> So you may be able to load SM in pharo but we will not use it as a way  
> to manage code.

Ehm... SM was never meant to "manage code". It is not an SCM.

> Sorry guys. clean SM first if you want it to be a credible alternative.

This last line is... odd. What do you mean with "guys"? And why do you
think "cleaning it" would solve something? I am not saying that cleaning
is not needed - just saying that cleaning is not solving the real
problem. We can't seriously tell people to maintain their packages in 3
different places (SS, PU, SM) IMHO.

I am interested in creating a new SM3 that can replace both PU and SM
and that plays very well with SS installations (there are more than one
even though squeaksource.com is the most important one) and can use
Deltastreams. By "replace" I mean that SM3 of course should simply
replace current SM but also that it could possibly "auto mirror"
packages from SS installations making them available on SM3 *without any
extra effort at all*. If SM3 also covers the functionality that PU has
(dependencies etc) then perhaps we could migrate over to it from PU. Or
again, we could make SM3 be able to "auto mirror" PUs, but that would be
less optimal I think.

Yes, I am picking up Deltastreams, have fixed lots of broken tests over
the last few days and have read up on Matthew's code. I think DS is a
really promising technology that can open up new nice tools, and still
not compete head on with MC/MC2. Instead it should hopefully replace
changesets and form a nice complement to MC/MC2.

Finally, I have always felt that SM should work in as many Squeak images
as possible - and Pharo is one of them of course. I don't care if Pharo
decides to not have SM as a "first class" citizen - as long as it can be
loaded into Pharo, and I will try to help out with ensuring that it can
- hopefully that is an effort that Pharo developers appreciate. (?)

regards, Göran


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> Hi!
>
> (being the creator of SM I can't resist this thread on Pharo-list...)
>
> Yes, I am cross-posting, so sue me.

No we are not like that :)
>>
>
> The above is not really a problem with SM "as a tool" but with the
> contents of SM.

Indeed.

> And as I predicted a few years back, SS (Squeaksource)
> and PU (package universes) are indeed competing with SM and would  
> (as it
> did) cause us to get a fragmentation. I am not blaiming anyone, but  
> I do
> see that as the primary cause of "data rot".
>
> Since a lot of projects use SCM hosting as available on SS they don't
> bother taking the extra step in keeping entries at SM fresh.

Come on. The publish was broken for years.

> Understandable but still a pity we couldn't create some harmony there.
>
> PU was a clear "fork" of SM (not the codebase but the use case) adding
> dependencies. I still think it was sad that people couldn't instead  
> help
> out in SM making it better.

Indeed

>> Sorry guys. clean SM first if you want it to be a credible  
>> alternative.
>
> This last line is... odd. What do you mean with "guys"?

anybody.
If somebody wants to have sm on pharo then they should clean the  
database.

I think that the key point is that somebody is responsible for  
publishing package in
a public ready to use Universe/Version

> If SM3 also covers the functionality that PU has
> (dependencies etc) then perhaps we could migrate over to it from PU.  
> Or
> again, we could make SM3 be able to "auto mirror" PUs, but that  
> would be
> less optimal I think.

Ok for me

> Yes, I am picking up Deltastreams, have fixed lots of broken tests  
> over
> the last few days and have read up on Matthew's code. I think DS is a
> really promising technology that can open up new nice tools, and still
> not compete head on with MC/MC2. Instead it should hopefully replace
> changesets and form a nice complement to MC/MC2.

I'm interested into that too.

> Finally, I have always felt that SM should work in as many Squeak  
> images
> as possible - and Pharo is one of them of course. I don't care if  
> Pharo
> decides to not have SM as a "first class" citizen - as long as it  
> can be
> loaded into Pharo, and I will try to help out with ensuring that it  
> can
> - hopefully that is an effort that Pharo developers appreciate. (?)

Sure!

Stef

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Hi!

Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> (being the creator of SM I can't resist this thread on Pharo-list...)
>>
>> Yes, I am cross-posting, so sue me.
>
> No we are not like that :)

Goodie. :)

Yes, broken in SS, not in SM AFAIK. Which indeed made it hard to keep
entries in SM fresh, I have never looked into it because I haven't had
that itch myself.

[SNIP]
I think it boils down to three different aspects/use cases:

- Making versions/projects available in a single nice catalog (SM, SS)
- Making controlled releases for a set of loosely defined environments (SM)
- Making controlled releases for a specific environment (PU)

The first is in its simplest form just access to an MC repo. Or just
access to code in some other form on SM - load it at your own peril.

The second is slightly more defined, since SM doesn't automatically
expose "all versions" but only those that you specifically put there, in
combination with categorization for Squeak version etc - it is not as
"wild" as SS is.

The third is hard core controlled - a specific version ONLY for a
specific image. Including dependencies etc.

regards, Göran


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project