[Pharo-project] cant squeak map
hi there, I've updated an image from server and it become unable to load stuff from squeak map. Looks it reachs a endless recursion about MIME cheers, sebastian
Sebastian Sastre wrote:
hi there, I've updated an image from server and it become unable to load stuff from squeak map. Looks it reachs a endless recursion about MIME
I can take a look, but didn't we plan to remove SM support anyways? Are you using the core or dev image? Did you load any additional packages? Michael
I can take a look, but didn't we plan to remove SM support anyways?
Are you using the core or dev image? Did you load any additional packages?
Michael
hi Michael, I've used a 243, updated from server and then tried to SM a couple of packages. I found cool to put in review package installation methods for pharo. What will be the pharo way to install packages? sebastian
Sebastian Sastre wrote:
I've used a 243, updated from server and then tried to SM a couple of packages.
Please try a 248.
I found cool to put in review package installation methods for pharo. What will be the pharo way to install packages?
Through Monticello I guess. Most people are using SqueakSource.com for their packages. Michael
But they are not the same. Universe, monticello and SM are different things. For example, MC doesn't support dependences. Universo do. I compare those three to something like this: MC: CVS, SVN, GIT or any other Source Version Control. This may be used for the developers of the source code. It may include stable and non stable code. Universe: something like apt-get and repositories. It manage dependencies. There are the most common, new and used packages. It may be used by a user of a package. Someone that just want to download a stable version and with all the dependencies of a package. SM: Like a repository where there are all the packages that has been in squeak from bigging. Cheers, Mariano On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Michael Rueger <m.rueger@acm.org> wrote:
Sebastian Sastre wrote:
I've used a 243, updated from server and then tried to SM a couple of packages.
Please try a 248.
I found cool to put in review package installation methods for pharo. What will be the pharo way to install packages?
Through Monticello I guess. Most people are using SqueakSource.com for their packages.
Michael
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
But they are not the same. Universe, monticello and SM are different things.
I agree, and we will definitely have Universes. Me, personally, don't use SqueakMap at all anymore, but if people would like to keep it in Pharo I'm fine with it. Just MTC Michael
Michael Rueger pravi:
Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
But they are not the same. Universe, monticello and SM are different things.
I agree, and we will definitely have Universes.
Me, personally, don't use SqueakMap at all anymore, but if people would like to keep it in Pharo I'm fine with it.
But it is important that Universes UI is then "uplifted" to be as usable as SqueakMap is. This tool is namely aimed for end users, not developers and specially newbies need to have as simple as possible way to load software. SM is close to that, Universes not. Universes has the biggest advantage to load all prerequisite packages, but lacks other things like easy search for packages, etc. Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek@eranova.si>wrote:
Michael Rueger pravi:
Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
But they are not the same. Universe, monticello and SM are different things.
I agree, and we will definitely have Universes.
Me, personally, don't use SqueakMap at all anymore, but if people would like to keep it in Pharo I'm fine with it.
But it is important that Universes UI is then "uplifted" to be as usable as SqueakMap is. This tool is namely aimed for end users, not developers and specially newbies need to have as simple as possible way to load software.
SM is close to that, Universes not. Universes has the biggest advantage to load all prerequisite packages, but lacks other things like easy search for packages, etc.
Totally agree. I would love having search option in universe or dependencies management in SM haha.
Best regards Janko
-- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:
But it is important that Universes UI is then "uplifted" to be as usable as SqueakMap is. This tool is namely aimed for end users, not developers and specially newbies need to have as simple as possible way to load software.
SM is close to that, Universes not. Universes has the  biggest advantage to load all prerequisite packages, but lacks other things like easy search for packages, etc.
Have you tried the OB-based universe browser? It's included in all squeak-dev images. You can search for packages by name or by category or by status (installed, upgradable...). It's certainly not perfect but it works ok for me. If you have fixes, please commit them directly to the repository.
Totally agree. I would love having search option in universe or dependencies management in SM haha.
There is a search option in OB-universe -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
Yes yes yes but we do not use SM since years. I cannot load one single package without breaking my image. If you read the comments of a package you should not load it because most of the time people entered that the code may work. Then the version identification is often obsolete. So you may be able to load SM in pharo but we will not use it as a way to manage code. Sorry guys. clean SM first if you want it to be a credible alternative. Stef On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:18 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
But they are not the same. Universe, monticello and SM are different things.
For example, MC doesn't support dependences. Universo do. I compare those three to something like this:
MC: CVS, SVN, GIT or any other Source Version Control. This may be used for the developers of the source code. It may include stable and non stable code.
Universe: something like apt-get and repositories. It manage dependencies. There are the most common, new and used packages. It may be used by a user of a package. Someone that just want to download a stable version and with all the dependencies of a package.
SM: Like a repository where there are all the packages that has been in squeak from bigging.
Cheers,
Mariano
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Michael Rueger <m.rueger@acm.org> wrote: Sebastian Sastre wrote:
I've used a 243, updated from server and then tried to SM a couple of packages.
Please try a 248.
I found cool to put in review package installation methods for pharo. What will be the pharo way to install packages?
Through Monticello I guess. Most people are using SqueakSource.com for their packages.
Michael
_______________________________________________ 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
thanks thanks thanks! a loader for XXI century please! and with an UI designed for human beings this time sebastian
-----Mensaje original----- De: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] En nombre de Stephane Ducasse Enviado el: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 19:06 Para: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Asunto: Re: [Pharo-project] cant squeak map
Yes yes yes but we do not use SM since years. I cannot load one single package without breaking my image. If you read the comments of a package you should not load it because most of the time people entered that the code may work. Then the version identification is often obsolete.
So you may be able to load SM in pharo but we will not use it as a way to manage code. Sorry guys. clean SM first if you want it to be a credible alternative.
Stef
On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:18 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
But they are not the same. Universe, monticello and SM are different things.
For example, MC doesn't support dependences. Universo do. I compare those three to something like this:
MC: CVS, SVN, GIT or any other Source Version Control. This may be used for the developers of the source code. It may include stable and non stable code.
Universe: something like apt-get and repositories. It manage dependencies. There are the most common, new and used packages. It may be used by a user of a package. Someone that just want to download a stable version and with all the dependencies of a package.
SM: Like a repository where there are all the packages that has been in squeak from bigging.
Cheers,
Mariano
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Michael Rueger <m.rueger@acm.org> wrote: Sebastian Sastre wrote:
I've used a 243, updated from server and then tried to SM a couple of packages.
Please try a 248.
I found cool to put in review package installation methods for pharo. What will be the pharo way to install packages?
Through Monticello I guess. Most people are using SqueakSource.com for their packages.
Michael
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On Mar 12, 2009, at 00:21 , Sebastian Sastre wrote:
thanks thanks thanks! a loader for XXI century please! and with an UI designed for human beings this time
That would be great, yes. Do you volunteer to work on this project? We need more manpower to do stuff like this... Cheers, Adrian
sebastian
-----Mensaje original----- De: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] En nombre de Stephane Ducasse Enviado el: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 19:06 Para: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Asunto: Re: [Pharo-project] cant squeak map
Yes yes yes but we do not use SM since years. I cannot load one single package without breaking my image. If you read the comments of a package you should not load it because most of the time people entered that the code may work. Then the version identification is often obsolete.
So you may be able to load SM in pharo but we will not use it as a way to manage code. Sorry guys. clean SM first if you want it to be a credible alternative.
Stef
On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:18 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
But they are not the same. Universe, monticello and SM are different things.
For example, MC doesn't support dependences. Universo do. I compare those three to something like this:
MC: CVS, SVN, GIT or any other Source Version Control. This may be used for the developers of the source code. It may include stable and non stable code.
Universe: something like apt-get and repositories. It manage dependencies. There are the most common, new and used packages. It may be used by a user of a package. Someone that just want to download a stable version and with all the dependencies of a package.
SM: Like a repository where there are all the packages that has been in squeak from bigging.
Cheers,
Mariano
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Michael Rueger <m.rueger@acm.org> wrote: Sebastian Sastre wrote:
I've used a 243, updated from server and then tried to SM a couple of packages.
Please try a 248.
I found cool to put in review package installation methods for pharo. What will be the pharo way to install packages?
Through Monticello I guess. Most people are using SqueakSource.com for their packages.
Michael
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi! (being the creator of SM I can't resist this thread on Pharo-list...) Yes, I am cross-posting, so sue me. Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Yes yes yes but we do not use SM since years. I cannot load one single package without breaking my image. If you read the comments of a package you should not load it because most of the time people entered that the code may work. Then the version identification is often obsolete.
The above is not really a problem with SM "as a tool" but with the contents of SM. And as I predicted a few years back, SS (Squeaksource) and PU (package universes) are indeed competing with SM and would (as it did) cause us to get a fragmentation. I am not blaiming anyone, but I do see that as the primary cause of "data rot". Since a lot of projects use SCM hosting as available on SS they don't bother taking the extra step in keeping entries at SM fresh. Understandable but still a pity we couldn't create some harmony there. PU was a clear "fork" of SM (not the codebase but the use case) adding dependencies. I still think it was sad that people couldn't instead help out in SM making it better.
So you may be able to load SM in pharo but we will not use it as a way to manage code.
Ehm... SM was never meant to "manage code". It is not an SCM.
Sorry guys. clean SM first if you want it to be a credible alternative.
This last line is... odd. What do you mean with "guys"? And why do you think "cleaning it" would solve something? I am not saying that cleaning is not needed - just saying that cleaning is not solving the real problem. We can't seriously tell people to maintain their packages in 3 different places (SS, PU, SM) IMHO. I am interested in creating a new SM3 that can replace both PU and SM and that plays very well with SS installations (there are more than one even though squeaksource.com is the most important one) and can use Deltastreams. By "replace" I mean that SM3 of course should simply replace current SM but also that it could possibly "auto mirror" packages from SS installations making them available on SM3 *without any extra effort at all*. If SM3 also covers the functionality that PU has (dependencies etc) then perhaps we could migrate over to it from PU. Or again, we could make SM3 be able to "auto mirror" PUs, but that would be less optimal I think. Yes, I am picking up Deltastreams, have fixed lots of broken tests over the last few days and have read up on Matthew's code. I think DS is a really promising technology that can open up new nice tools, and still not compete head on with MC/MC2. Instead it should hopefully replace changesets and form a nice complement to MC/MC2. Finally, I have always felt that SM should work in as many Squeak images as possible - and Pharo is one of them of course. I don't care if Pharo decides to not have SM as a "first class" citizen - as long as it can be loaded into Pharo, and I will try to help out with ensuring that it can - hopefully that is an effort that Pharo developers appreciate. (?) regards, Göran
Hi!
(being the creator of SM I can't resist this thread on Pharo-list...)
Yes, I am cross-posting, so sue me.
No we are not like that :)
The above is not really a problem with SM "as a tool" but with the contents of SM.
Indeed.
And as I predicted a few years back, SS (Squeaksource) and PU (package universes) are indeed competing with SM and would (as it did) cause us to get a fragmentation. I am not blaiming anyone, but I do see that as the primary cause of "data rot".
Since a lot of projects use SCM hosting as available on SS they don't bother taking the extra step in keeping entries at SM fresh.
Come on. The publish was broken for years.
Understandable but still a pity we couldn't create some harmony there.
PU was a clear "fork" of SM (not the codebase but the use case) adding dependencies. I still think it was sad that people couldn't instead help out in SM making it better.
Indeed
Sorry guys. clean SM first if you want it to be a credible alternative.
This last line is... odd. What do you mean with "guys"?
anybody. If somebody wants to have sm on pharo then they should clean the database.
And why do you think "cleaning it" would solve something? I am not saying that cleaning is not needed - just saying that cleaning is not solving the real problem. We can't seriously tell people to maintain their packages in 3 different places (SS, PU, SM) IMHO.
I am interested in creating a new SM3 that can replace both PU and SM and that plays very well with SS installations (there are more than one even though squeaksource.com is the most important one) and can use Deltastreams. By "replace" I mean that SM3 of course should simply replace current SM but also that it could possibly "auto mirror" packages from SS installations making them available on SM3 *without any extra effort at all*.
I think that the key point is that somebody is responsible for publishing package in a public ready to use Universe/Version
If SM3 also covers the functionality that PU has (dependencies etc) then perhaps we could migrate over to it from PU. Or again, we could make SM3 be able to "auto mirror" PUs, but that would be less optimal I think.
Ok for me
Yes, I am picking up Deltastreams, have fixed lots of broken tests over the last few days and have read up on Matthew's code. I think DS is a really promising technology that can open up new nice tools, and still not compete head on with MC/MC2. Instead it should hopefully replace changesets and form a nice complement to MC/MC2.
I'm interested into that too.
Finally, I have always felt that SM should work in as many Squeak images as possible - and Pharo is one of them of course. I don't care if Pharo decides to not have SM as a "first class" citizen - as long as it can be loaded into Pharo, and I will try to help out with ensuring that it can - hopefully that is an effort that Pharo developers appreciate. (?)
Sure! Stef
regards, Göran
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Hi! Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi!
(being the creator of SM I can't resist this thread on Pharo-list...)
Yes, I am cross-posting, so sue me.
No we are not like that :)
Goodie. :)
The above is not really a problem with SM "as a tool" but with the contents of SM.
Indeed.
And as I predicted a few years back, SS (Squeaksource) and PU (package universes) are indeed competing with SM and would (as it did) cause us to get a fragmentation. I am not blaiming anyone, but I do see that as the primary cause of "data rot".
Since a lot of projects use SCM hosting as available on SS they don't bother taking the extra step in keeping entries at SM fresh.
Come on. The publish was broken for years.
Yes, broken in SS, not in SM AFAIK. Which indeed made it hard to keep entries in SM fresh, I have never looked into it because I haven't had that itch myself. [SNIP]
And why do you think "cleaning it" would solve something? I am not saying that cleaning is not needed - just saying that cleaning is not solving the real problem. We can't seriously tell people to maintain their packages in 3 different places (SS, PU, SM) IMHO.
I am interested in creating a new SM3 that can replace both PU and SM and that plays very well with SS installations (there are more than one even though squeaksource.com is the most important one) and can use Deltastreams. By "replace" I mean that SM3 of course should simply replace current SM but also that it could possibly "auto mirror" packages from SS installations making them available on SM3 *without any extra effort at all*.
I think that the key point is that somebody is responsible for publishing package in a public ready to use Universe/Version
I think it boils down to three different aspects/use cases: - Making versions/projects available in a single nice catalog (SM, SS) - Making controlled releases for a set of loosely defined environments (SM) - Making controlled releases for a specific environment (PU) The first is in its simplest form just access to an MC repo. Or just access to code in some other form on SM - load it at your own peril. The second is slightly more defined, since SM doesn't automatically expose "all versions" but only those that you specifically put there, in combination with categorization for Squeak version etc - it is not as "wild" as SS is. The third is hard core controlled - a specific version ONLY for a specific image. Including dependencies etc. regards, Göran
participants (8)
-
Adrian Lienhard -
Damien Cassou -
Göran Krampe -
Janko Mivšek -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Michael Rueger -
Sebastian Sastre -
Stéphane Ducasse