- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Incompatibility between Pharo and Seasidehosting

by Damien Cassou

Hi, On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Bruce O'Neel <squeak(a)pckswarms.ch> wrote: > Is it possible this error? > > sqUnixMemory.c:172: uxGrowMemoryBy: Assertion `newDelta >= 0` failed. > Aborted I don't think so because seasidehosting would print an error message in the system logs and it is not the case. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Incompatibility between Pharo and Seasidehosting

by Bruce O'Neel

Hi, Is it possible this error? sqUnixMemory.c:172: uxGrowMemoryBy: Assertion `newDelta >= 0` failed. Aborted I get this following the procedure below on a Debian Lenny PPC system with Squeak 3.10-4. Gcc is 4.3.2. I do not get this on a Ubuntu hardy ppc system with the same version of squeak. Gcc is slightly older at 4.2.3. I've worked around this, for the moment, by adding -memory 200m to the squeak command line. I spent some weekend debugging this, but, I didn't find where the problem it is comes from. cheers bruce On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 04:45:00PM +0100, Damien Cassou wrote: > Hi, > > there is a problem with Pharo on Seasidehosting. Using a stock Pharo > image 10225, installing Seaside from Universe, it works perfectly fine > locally. As soon as I upload and run the image on Seasidehosting, it > doesn't work anymore.(503: Service Temporarily Unavailable). > There is nothing in the log files accessible through the > seasidehosting admin interface. > > You can see the problem on http://diagen.seasidehosting.st. > > To reproduce: > > - download Pharo version 10225 (newer versions have the annoying MIME problem) > - ScriptLoader new installingUniverse > - In the Universe browser, install Seaside. > - Upload the image and the changes file to a seasidehosting account > - Start the image > > Since all Pier images are now based on Pharo, this is a problem for > all new pier users. > > -- > Damien Cassou > http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Question about Universes

by Damien Cassou

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Lukas Renggli <renggli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > - 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. You are wrong about Sake I think. Sake can declare a universe of known-to-work-together packages. Just take a class, declare the sake tasks you know work together in the image you target and things will be as in universe. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] ABout MC browser size

by Gary Chambers

I assume you mean the WorkingCopyBrowser, it seems to have the correct default extent (580@200) as specified though the buttons in Watery 2 require extra width when rounded. Try 648@200. All is also font dependent though... Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "StÃ©phane Ducasse" <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> To: "Pharo Development" <Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:31 PM Subject: [Pharo-project] ABout MC browser size > Hi gary > > I do not really understand since I fixed the default size of the MC > browser in the past. > When I loaded your code I imagine that I merge and that they were no > conflict > so I do not understand why now I have again a wrong size. > Do you have an idea? > Did you merge back my little changes? > > Stef > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Feb. 19, 2009

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