On Feb 27, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27 February 2013 07:51, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 February 2013 18:33, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/2/26 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>:
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:33 PM, "Esteban A. Maringolo" <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:
If you count the number of packages in SmalltalkHub and compare them to the ones in Npmjs.org, it is impressive how much we have. But isn't "package" more like "repository" on smalltalkhub?
It is a Project, but on the explore screen it says Packages, so... who knows? :)
But it is true that GitHub is to SmalltakHub what npm/gem is to...?
No. GitHub and SmalltalkHub are repositories. Rubygems for Ruby (or clojars for Clojure, or CPAN for Perl) - are like SqueakMap - catalogs that point to packages/applications.
IHMO, we don't need SqueakMap anymore. If we have ConfigurationOfXXX packages for each project and a different repositories for each Pharo distribution (like the one we have already in SqueakSource), I guess we are very close to the service proposed by SqueakMap.
Sure, see Stef's and my recent exchange. I guess when I say "SqueakMap" I should say "SM-like". I don't necessarily mean using the existing SM, although it's perfectly usable (despite the rather aged web UI) - Chris Muller and I nag people into adding their packages to the catalog on a regular basis - but Stef wants something like what SM provides only in an assured fashion - "this package definitely works with this version because we tried it".
Did you solve the problem that it was wasting ca. 4MB if memory because it had a copy of the complete catalog (everything but the files) on the client? Marcus