On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:59 AM, St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
The question is what we call core.
I think that core should contain less and less but pharo should contain infrastructure and FFI or Alien
are infrastructure.


If you look at my answer to German on "Re: [Pharo-project] Really Important message (tm)"
April 16
You can see that with a fast loading package mechanism then we could really introduce in "Pharo-Core" (= what we have now)
infrastructure package to produce Pharo and works on making a real core. FFI does not belong to this core=mini but
to Pharo from my point of view

Mini
Mini + FFI + Tools + IDE + Compiler ....= PharoCore
Pharo + Sounds + Morphic examples + archiview.... = Pharo



I know what you are thinking ;)
But I even wouldn't put FFI neither in PharoCore or Pharo.

If you want FFI, load it by yourself or in the metacello configuration of YOUR app.

Cheers

Mariano
�
Note that the belonging of one package to group is not automatically clear.
This is why metacello is key and a metacelloRepository.

Steg

>> I wouldn't include neither FFI or Alien FFI in neither PharoCore or PharoDev
>> image.
>
> +1
>
>> That's only my opinion.
>
> Maybe Stef should tell us more about why he thinks it should be included.
>
> Bye
> T.
>
> --
> GRATIS f�r alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
> Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project