[squeak-dev] Smalltalk images considered harmful

Norbert Hartl wrote:
Do squeak run on Hurd ?

Karl

On May 23, 2008, at 4:05 AM, Karl Ramberg wrote:
>
> Do squeak run on Hurd ?
>

I didn't trace back in the thread to get the context for this  
question, but addressing it at face value, the answer is (probably)  
yes and no.  This is like asking whether Squeak runs on Mach, which  
has the same answer.  Yes, because OS X uses a Mach microkernel.  No,  
because OS X Squeak doesn't make any Mach calls directly; it  
interfaces with the BSD subsystem (plus other OS X APIs).

Cheers,
Josh


> Karl
>

I think a fruitful way to continue the discussion with Debian would be
to try to take a step up from the mechanical issues raised in Thomas's
original message to try to discover what the substantive concerns behind
them are--e.g., licensing, the right to inspect and modify software,
etc.  It seems to me he has translated those into the modes that are
typical for source/binary software, and it would better to get the
substantive requirements from Debian and then for us to think about how
those can be met in the context of squeak (and persuade Debian that way
is appropriate).

The rest of this message is a response to the dialogue below, which is
arguably wandering off topic to the nature of Debian.  However, just as
Debian needs to understand a bit about squeak to make the integration
work, squeak needs to understand a bit about Debian.  It seems to me
that Norbert's characterization of Debian, or at least some possible
readings of it, are a bit misleading.

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:39 +0200, Norbert Hartl wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 11:03 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 14:42 +0200, Norbert Hartl wrote:
> > > Even if squeak could cope well with all sorts of dependency and
> > > conflicts management it wouldn't change much. Debian is an operating
> > > system and they are looking for an operating-system-way to do all
> > > these things.
I'm not sure what you meant by "looking at things in an operating
system way," but most of the effort in Debian goes into packaging
applications.  They definitely want it so that if you pull in package x
you will get all the other packages, at the appropriate version levels,
that x requires to function.

> > Debian is a distribution that includes operating systems (primarily
> > Linux, but at various times BSD and Hurd) and a lot of other software.
> >
> Of course, debian is a distribution system  for software.
"distribution system for software" sounds as if it refers to the
servers you can pull packages from, whereas "distribution," which is the
more typical phrasing I've seen, implies an integrated and manageable
set of software.  Debian is both.

>  But for me it
> is an operating system, too. The name is DebianLinux
I don't think I've seen Debian ever referred to as DebianLinux in
Debian.  Debian has made a big deal about its main distribution being
"Debian Gnu/Linux", where the GNU is an explicit reference to the fact
that there's a lot of other software on top of Linux, and that there is
or could be GNU/Hurd, GNU/BSD, etc.  Of course, not all the software is
GNU software, but please let's not go there.

>  but you can savely
> omit the Linux and everybody knows what you mean :)

www.debian.org provides more.  At the top:
What is Debian?
Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating
system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your
computer run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating
system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence
the name GNU/Linux.

Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 18733
packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy
installation on your machine.

[Ross: so the first paragraph says Debian *is* an OS, while the second
says Debian *includes* an OS.  Go figure.]

>
> To be correct (I think you wanted to be) none of your examples is an
> operating system. Linux and Hurd are kernels and BSD is an operating
> system family.
>
> Norbert

True.  I think the GNU/BSD was to be using just the kernel of BSD, but I
could be wrong.  At any rate, I think that particular project was
abandonned.

Your definition of an operating system may be "bigger" than mine; I'd
include some core but non-kernel software in it, but not most of what
are considered applications.

Ross

I don't know if anybody has already said this, but I think we should just have our own repository for debian.  It seems much simpler than all this mess.  mabye have on for Fedora also?




--
David Zmick
/dz0004455\
http://dz0004455.googlepages.com
http://dz0004455.blogspot.com

On 26.05.2008, at 16:20, David Zmick wrote:

> I don't know if anybody has already said this, but I think we should  
> just have our own repository for debian.

That's missing the point (besides, apt repos for squeak do exist).

The point is that with the relicensing effort we finally have the  
chance to become an regular member of the wider open source and free  
software community. Inclusion in Debian, Fedora, etc. will certainly  
get us a much wider user base, because Squeak or Etoys would be listed  
alongside all the other development or learning environments. It's  
much easier to get into specialized distros like Edubuntu if the  
package is part of regular distros. Etc.

You could even write software that depends on an existing VM and image  
and hence could be a small nice utility that does not have to bundle  
its own image and VM (and once Squeak opens the door it could be  
easier for subsequent Squeak-based apps to get accepted).

Now I am neither a Debian nor Fedora maintainer, but I hoped that  
there are people who use these (and other) distros and care enough  
about Squeak to push it into the right channels.

- Bert -

I just want to report you that etoys has just been accepted in the non-free branch of Debian. The reason to put it in non-free (even if I (we) consider it's free) is that we want to give the chance to the Debian users to use it while the discussion on moving it to main continues. The next step is filling a bug against ftp.debian.org saying that etoys in non-free is an error, as it's a free package.

From my point of view, the main obstacle for Debian is the fact of not being able to bootstrap, rebuild or check the changes in the image using plain text files. Some of the things that have been said in this thread might head to implement a way to demonstrate that this is possible, I guess that it will be possible with future images, not with the current one. Obviously, all the help or participation from the Squeak community to achieve this goal is very welcome.
Also, if some of you would like to help to maintain Squeak in Debian, please, tell it, so we can consider  creating an alioth project in Debian to maintain this image and future squeak images in the distribution.

As Bert previously mentioned, Debian is not only for Debian users, but also a seed for other distributions like mepis, knoppix, linex, skolelinux, ubuntu, etc. that use its repositories and packages, so having Squeak in Debian is a warranty to make its spreading and use easier for these distributions users.

Regards.
José L