On 16 Feb 2014, at 20:58, Johan Brichau <johan@inceptive.be> wrote:
It seems there were still some class extensions in the package Seaside-Pharo20-Core that were using the '*seaside-pharo-core' method protocol name. This is because the package was originally just a copy of the Seaside-Pharo-Core package, and there was a (now solved) bug in Nautilus at the time the package was renamed.
It's fixed now in the #bleedingEdge
Yes it is, thank you !
Johan
On 16 Feb 2014, at 15:26, Max Leske <maxleske@gmail.com> wrote:
Hm⦠donât really know but I guess they could come fromt the configuration. If you look for the string âseaside-pharoâ in the image then youâll see that those packages are specified in the configuration. But if you really want to know youâll probably have to step through a loading cycle with Metacello⦠good luck with that :)
On 16.02.2014, at 14:57, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
As far as I can see, there is no such package, at all, that is why I am puzzled ;-)
On 16 Feb 2014, at 14:50, Max Leske <maxleske@gmail.com> wrote:
If youâve loaded Seaside-Pharo then those extensions would be in the Seaside-Pharo package, wouldnât they?
On 16.02.2014, at 14:15, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
When using the latest Seaside on Pharo 3 (either loading ConfigurationOfBootstrap or the Seaside image, 3.0 bleedingEdge, built on the pharo-contribution CI server), I have two mysterious dirty packages without a repository:
- Seaside-pharo-core - Seaside-pharo-core-backtracking
These only contain extensions. There are no such Seaside package as far as I can see.
What puzzles me is how the code got in the image in the first place: I can understand that these are possible wrong extension protocol names, but since they must be loaded by an MC package, how did they get into that package in the first place ?
Sven
-- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill