On 12 Dec 2013, at 08:14, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:

Hi,


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:

On 12 Dec 2013, at 06:31, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephan,
>
> Thanks for pushing the #packages problem.
>
>
> But, it's strange that the Pharo3 build is not red. Could it be that the test was not integrated into Pharo?
>
the test tests that there is no #packages in Pharo on the class side other than the one that returns the
rpackage istance.
�> this is the case, the test is green.

Oh, so the API classes were fixed. I should have checked before (I just did). Great.
 
But *Grease* still is  the problem: in the tradition of the wonderful philosophy �Lets keep all smalltalk crappy
and provide some layer on top�, it redefines #package and therefore requires that no Smalltalk ever
implements #packages on the class side to return the system concept of package. 

What you need to find out: Why does Grease need a #package method? Is there a GreasePackage class?
What is it�s responsibility? wouldn�t it be good enough to have a #gpackage method?

In general, you should evaluate Grease and put all the *concepts* it adds into Pharo itself. This way even
the Core system can use them and everything gets better.

Marcus