February 2009 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Question about Universes

by Lukas Renggli

> How does the universe knows OB is already in the image? Universe could easily find out if a newer version is loaded, but from what I know about Universe it deliberately doesn't do so. Universes is supposed to provide working sets of packages. If Universe would not insist on loading the older version, compatibility could not be guaranteed anymore. I think that behavior makes sense. Maybe a warning could be shown, that an older version will be loaded? > As soon as Pharo switches to Sake and MC1.5, that will fix the problem > because everything uses PackageInfo to know what is installed. I don't > want to fix Universes knowing that a better system exists. Has this been decided yet? I hope there will be some discussion about this. I don't think Sake is better than Universe. It is just different. - Universes is declarative system, it declares the exact versions that are known to work together. No exceptions here, it loads the specified configuration with the specified dependencies. - Sake is an imperative system, it uses Installer to load versions. Installer either loads specific versions, or some version based on a query string. I agree that this is much more powerful, however there is no guarantee that all the packages that Installer thinks are the right versions also work together. In the end random versions of random packages from random repositories will be loaded in random order into your image. Does this solve the problem? I don't think so. Cheers, Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Question about Universes

by Damien Cassou

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM, David RÃ¶thlisberger <squeak(a)webcitas.ch> wrote: > Maybe we could introduce a dialog asking whether the user really wants to downgrade > his newer version of a package to the one Universe is suggesting to load, instead of > just always overwriting the already installed version? How does the universe knows OB is already in the image? As soon as Pharo switches to Sake and MC1.5, that will fix the problem because everything uses PackageInfo to know what is installed. I don't want to fix Universes knowing that a better system exists. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Question about Universes

by David RÃ¶thlisberger

>> What I don't understand: Why does Universe load the OmniBrowser dependency when there >> is already a newer version of OmniBrowser installed in this image? I think it >> shouldn't do that. Does Universe not check whether the version number installed is >> higher than the latest one defined in Universe? Wouldn't it make sense to do this? > > Universe knows what it installed. If you install OB through > squeaksource, Universe will reinstall its own version. ok, I understand. Maybe we could introduce a dialog asking whether the user really wants to downgrade his newer version of a package to the one Universe is suggesting to load, instead of just always overwriting the already installed version? David

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Question about Universes

by Damien Cassou

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:16 AM, David RÃ¶thlisberger <squeak(a)webcitas.ch> wrote: > What I don't understand: Why does Universe load the OmniBrowser dependency when there > is already a newer version of OmniBrowser installed in this image? I think it > shouldn't do that. Does Universe not check whether the version number installed is > higher than the latest one defined in Universe? Wouldn't it make sense to do this? Universe knows what it installed. If you install OB through squeaksource, Universe will reinstall its own version. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Question about Universes

by Alexandre Bergel

+ 1 Alexandre On 19 Feb 2009, at 10:16, David RÃ¶thlisberger wrote: > >>> Omnibrowser gets installed, where it should not. Where is the >>> definition of this Universe stored? >> >> Without thinking and checking: ShoutOmnibrowser depends on >> Omnibrowser, that's why OB is installed. > > What I don't understand: Why does Universe load the OmniBrowser > dependency when there > is already a newer version of OmniBrowser installed in this image? I > think it > shouldn't do that. Does Universe not check whether the version > number installed is > higher than the latest one defined in Universe? Wouldn't it make > sense to do this? > > David > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Question about Universes

by David RÃ¶thlisberger

>> Omnibrowser gets installed, where it should not. Where is the >> definition of this Universe stored? > > Without thinking and checking: ShoutOmnibrowser depends on > Omnibrowser, that's why OB is installed. What I don't understand: Why does Universe load the OmniBrowser dependency when there is already a newer version of OmniBrowser installed in this image? I think it shouldn't do that. Does Universe not check whether the version number installed is higher than the latest one defined in Universe? Wouldn't it make sense to do this? David

Feb. 19, 2009

[Pharo-project] New Pharo-dev based on 10236

by Damien Cassou

http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/Downloads?tm=2 -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo-Core, Pharo, Pharo-Dev, Squeak-Dev ...

by Adrian Lienhard

On Feb 19, 2009, at 09:56 , Damien Cassou wrote: > Pharo-code: a small kernel with very few things in Pharo-core, to be precise and to avoid more confusion ;) Adrian

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo-Core, Pharo, Pharo-Dev, Squeak-Dev ...

by Damien Cassou

Hi Geert, On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Geert <geert.wl.claes(a)gmail.com> wrote: > To avoid confusion, the project file releases probably needs some cleaning > up. Is having the old Squeak and/or Sapphire labeled releases still useful? > On the Pharo-Project site it describes "Pharo" as the bundle of "Pharo-Core" > + "IDE Tools". On the download site the file releases with "Pharo-Core" in > their name are under "Pharo" ... and then there are also the Pharo-Dev and > Squeak-Dev image releases. Its probably not a big deal and everyone is flat > out doing the actual important stuff but I thought I'd mention it anyway as > it may cause some confusion :) > > It may also be useful to include a list of the packages (package name, > version, package description) which are part of the release in the release > notes file (above the "Changes" section). you are right, things are not clear. But that's mainly because we haven't release any stable version yet. When 1.0 comes, things will be much clearer. What we would like to do: Pharo-code: a small kernel with very few things in Pharo: a complete Smalltalk implementation for any developer to use with syntax highlighting, code completion, advanced code browsers... Pharo-dev: will disappear Pharo-project: the name of the website -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Feb. 19, 2009

[Pharo-project] Add floatAt:bigEndian: in order to read IEEE 32 bits single precision float from byte arrays

by Serge Stinckwich

http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=585 -- Serge Stinckwich IRD - UMI 209 UMMISCO, Hanoi, Vietnam Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] http://doesnotunderstand.org/

Feb. 19, 2009