- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Problem to save packages
by Roca Vincent Feb. 19, 2018

Feb. 19, 2018

Hi, I'm a new Pharo user (Pharo 5.0). I have created a package and now I just want to save it in the package-cache folder. But, when I try to do this using the Monticello Browser, I get an exception telling me the file I'm trying to save does not exist. I already managed to save some packages but I can't anymore. Thanks in advance for your help.

5 7

VirtualMachine vs. Platform and Bootstrap
by Torsten Bergmann Feb. 19, 2018

Feb. 19, 2018

Hi, 1. We can query for the VIRTUAL MACHINE and ask if it is 32 or 64 bit (internally depending on wordSize): Smalltalk vm is32Bit Anything OK on that side. 2. We can also query for the OPERATING SYSTEM we are running on using: Smalltalk os and there are subclasses for OSPlatform like Win32Platform, Win64Platform as well as Unix32Platform, unix64Platform, ... But when I evaluate "Smalltalk os" in Pharo 7 Build #70552 2a) I receive a Win32Platform instance which means 32 bit although I'm running on a Win 64 system 2b) I receive a Unix32Platform instance which means 32 bit although I'm running on a Ubuntu 64 system I see this as a clear bug and very confusing The reason for this behavior is simple: because I run with the 32 bit VM/image on these two 64 bit operating systems and in Pharo: for 2a) the#isActivePlatform method ask the VM (???)for the platform name (which is Win32 then) for 2b) the#isActivePlatform method also considers the word size from the VM (???) But to me the "os" should give me infos about the underlying operating system and is currently returning a wrong instance (because it falls back to querying about the running VM, not the real platform) This would be easy to fix with some UFFI calls (for instance piping from "uname -i" on Unix or "ver" on Windows). With UFFI I would also be able to give more and better infos in the platform hierarchy about the underlying OS. But doing this would introduce a dependency from the "Systems-Platforms" package to "UFFI" (and currently my understanding is that UFFI comes later) >From what I understood from the comment in getPwdViaFFI:with we also would like to focus on a minimal dependency for bootstrap ... and only depend on FFI and not UFFI. Any comments how we could deal with that best? Thx T.

4 3

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #573: 21363-coreMethodsForClass-send-but-not-implemented
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Feb. 18, 2018

Feb. 18, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #573 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #913 was integrated: "21363-coreMethodsForClass-send-but-not-implemented" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/913 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21363 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #572: 17913-LegacyWeakSubscription-should-be-merged-with-WeakAnnouncementSubscription
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Feb. 18, 2018

Feb. 18, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #572 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #879 was integrated: "17913-LegacyWeakSubscription-should-be-merged-with-WeakAnnouncementSubscription" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/879 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17913 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #571: 21366-Add-a-good-printOn-method-to-SHRange
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Feb. 17, 2018

Feb. 17, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #571 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #910 was integrated: "21366-Add-a-good-printOn-method-to-SHRange" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/910 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21366 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

we should include ReferenceFinder as part of Pharo
by Esteban Lorenzano Feb. 17, 2018

Feb. 17, 2018

Hi, Recently I was hunting a leak and I found that what we have now (pointers explorer) is not very good, so I dug into ReferenceFinder (in catalog) and everything became a lot easier. So, I wonder: Shouldnât we include it as part of the standard distribution? (also, taking into account we want to remove EyeInspector and related tools and pointer explored is based on it?) cheers, Esteban

2 1

About UFFI documentation deprecation.
by Stephane Ducasse Feb. 17, 2018

Feb. 17, 2018

About https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/Booklet-uFFI Dear (poor) reader, since years I tried to convince people understanding FFI to finish this documentation. But I failed. Apparently documenting FFI is not important enough. So I stopped to try and in the future I will remove simply this booklet because there is nothing as bad as a half done unfinished documentation. If within 6 months this documentation stays in this bad format, I will remove it from this repository. 15 of Febrary 2018. By 15 of August if nothing changed I will remove this project and all the associated infrastructure. S. Ducasse - ''Even jedi cannot move mountain.''

3 4

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #570: 21341-deprecate-theNonMetaclass
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Feb. 17, 2018

Feb. 17, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #570 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #909 was integrated: "21341-deprecate-theNonMetaclass" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/909 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21341 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Pharo 7.0-dev] Build #569: 21325 FileServices class itemsForDirectory: should not use #selector
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Feb. 17, 2018

Feb. 17, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #569 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #906 was integrated: "21325 FileServices class itemsForDirectory: should not use #selector" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/906 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/21325 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

Iceberg left:right
by Stephane Ducasse Feb. 17, 2018

Feb. 17, 2018

Hi Esteban did you change the left right order in the diff tool? I'm super confused in the latest version doing a code review. I have left: workingcopy right: incoming updates Is right the change proposed? What is the workingcopy? My image? Because as you can see in the attached screeshot the right is showing what is in the image. It is super difficult to understand anything. I checked with github and incoming is the image and workingcopy the proposed fix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Argh. Is it only me? Can you fix this important glitch? Stef

2 2