[Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Re: ScriptLoader loadFFI doesn't work anymore

Dale Henrichs dale.henrichs at gemstone.com
Thu Feb 18 15:12:28 EST 2010

----- "Yanni Chiu" <yanni at rogers.com> wrote:

| Dale Henrichs wrote:
| > ----- "Yanni Chiu" <yanni at rogers.com> wrote:
| > 
| > | BTW, since all FFI-Examples packages were removed from the FFI 
| > | repository, even Metacello "versions" would fail because the
| package
| > | is 
| > | no longer there.
| > 
| > This underscores Lukas' argument that you need to create your own
| repository of packages that you use. 
| I don't understand how this jives with Metacello. If I depend on a 
| Metacello configuration then I inherit the repository dependencies of
| that configuration -- unless I maintain my own copy of the
| configuration 
| and the packages it references.

This was a comment about keeping Pharo-level repositories, rather than individual repositories.

In theory the Metacello configuration is created by the maintainers of the project, so in theory the maintainers won't remove packages that are needed for development and won't remove packages for which they've published a version.

In practice, the FFI configuration is maintained by Pharo and the code in question is being managed by Squeak (and the Squeak folks aren't using Metacello). 

If Pharo has it's own repository for things like FFI, etc. then the problem of disappearing packages shouldn't happen.

| > As far as I am concerned, it is a cardinal sin to remove packages
| from a public repository ...
| I agree. I assume the reason for removing the package was to eliminate
| confusion caused when the latest version of the package is loaded, but
| doesn't work, because none of the code should be there. Another
| approach  might have been to delete all the classes/methods from the package,and 
| submit it as the latest version. Though I'm not sure Monticello would
| accept an "empty" package.

There's no question that the folks managing that repository had a good reason for doing what they did, but if a developer happened to have branched FFI-Examples, she'd be SOL, unless she copied the packages in self defense...which is Lukas' point.

If you are going to depend upon a set of packages in a repository, then you are at the mercy of the maintainers of the repository as far as uptime as well as contents.

| > We'll have to mark the earlier versions of FFI as broken in the
| Metacello config unless we can recover the older files...
| I probably can find an old version in a package-cache, but the 
| repository for FFI is on http://source.squeakfoundation.org, which
| seems 
| to be the active code base for Squeak (correct me if I'm wrong).

I assume that FFI is actually being maintained in separate (private) repository and the public repository (where we've been grabbing FFI) is simply a staging area for publishing the latest version of the code...


More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list