- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Recommended stable Pharo 5.0 VM for Linux users?

by Luke Gorrie

Hi again Esteban, On 4 April 2017 at 08:44, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > in fact, I will promote a new stable soon, so Iâd recommend for now take > the master branch of https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm > Could you possibly spin a (alpha) release that I could use? The problem with building directly from Git is that then I need to use another Pharo for bootstrapping and this will complicate the build process considerably. I can't use the get.pharo.org method on NixOS both because the binary won't be compatible and because I need all dependencies to be locked down with a known sha256. So I would need to build the previous VM release from source and combine that with a compatible (pre-5.0) image to run VMMaker. This sounds a bit complicated, time consuming, and prone to error if I am using a much older image than the official releases for bootstrapping. Cheers! -Luke

April 4, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Recommended stable Pharo 5.0 VM for Linux users?

by Luke Gorrie

Thanks for the fast response! Can you also recommend the best pharo-launcher image version to package? The stable one looks stale (lists Pharo 5.0 as "beta" for me) On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 at 08:45, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > in fact, I will promote a new stable soon, so Iâd recommend for now take > the master branch of https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm > > Esteban > > > On 4 Apr 2017, at 07:01, Luke Gorrie <luke(a)snabb.co> wrote: > > Questions! > > Where can I find the source code for the latest stable Linux/unix VM for > Pharo 5.0? I want to package it for a Linux distribution (NixOS). > > Currently I am confused: > > The release tarballs at > http://files.pharo.org/vm/src/vm-unix-sources/blessed show the latest > non-Spur version being 2016-02-18. > > The github repo at https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm has a tag > Pharo50-stable on commit b8ec25a which dates from 2016-05-04. (Is this tag > immutable or does it move around?) > > The URL for downloading binaries (get.pharo.org/vm50) does not seem to > say anywhere what version it is downloading, and it was not obvious to me > from downloading the binary and inspecting it with 'strings' either (it's > not for my distro so I can't just run it with '--version'). > > Help would be appreciated! > > Great if somebody could also tell me under what circumstances the spur VM > is preferred to the non-spur VM. > > > >

April 4, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Recommended stable Pharo 5.0 VM for Linux users?

by Esteban Lorenzano

in fact, I will promote a new stable soon, so Iâd recommend for now take the master branch of https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm> Esteban > On 4 Apr 2017, at 07:01, Luke Gorrie <luke(a)snabb.co> wrote: > > Questions! > > Where can I find the source code for the latest stable Linux/unix VM for Pharo 5.0? I want to package it for a Linux distribution (NixOS). > > Currently I am confused: > > The release tarballs at http://files.pharo.org/vm/src/vm-unix-sources/blessed <http://files.pharo.org/vm/src/vm-unix-sources/blessed> show the latest non-Spur version being 2016-02-18. > > The github repo at https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm> has a tag Pharo50-stable on commit b8ec25a which dates from 2016-05-04. (Is this tag immutable or does it move around?) > > The URL for downloading binaries (get.pharo.org/vm50 <http://get.pharo.org/vm50>) does not seem to say anywhere what version it is downloading, and it was not obvious to me from downloading the binary and inspecting it with 'strings' either (it's not for my distro so I can't just run it with '--version'). > > Help would be appreciated! > > Great if somebody could also tell me under what circumstances the spur VM is preferred to the non-spur VM. > >

April 4, 2017

Recommended stable Pharo 5.0 VM for Linux users?

by Luke Gorrie

Questions! Where can I find the source code for the latest stable Linux/unix VM for Pharo 5.0? I want to package it for a Linux distribution (NixOS). Currently I am confused: The release tarballs at http://files.pharo.org/vm/src/vm-unix-sources/blessed show the latest non-Spur version being 2016-02-18. The github repo at https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm has a tag Pharo50-stable on commit b8ec25a which dates from 2016-05-04. (Is this tag immutable or does it move around?) The URL for downloading binaries (get.pharo.org/vm50) does not seem to say anywhere what version it is downloading, and it was not obvious to me from downloading the binary and inspecting it with 'strings' either (it's not for my distro so I can't just run it with '--version'). Help would be appreciated! Great if somebody could also tell me under what circumstances the spur VM is preferred to the non-spur VM.

April 4, 2017

Notifications with more details (something like improved #inform:

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

Hi, Nowadays task bar in several desktop environments gives you a condensed view of notifications and in you click on them, can see detailed notifications. For example they show a notification saying "5 new telegram messages" and you click on the notification and shows individual messages. We have #inform: but if you use it for several notifications they pile up and soon becomes unmanageable. Do we have something like that desktop notifications with more details in Pharo? Thanks, Offray

April 4, 2017

Survey about the Roassal visualization engine

by Alexandre Bergel

Hi! We are doing a survey about Roassal. Giving about 2 minutes of your time to fill the survey can have a tremendous impact on it. https://goo.gl/forms/zEt7VdkLSYvBG6jf2 Help us improving Roassal :-) The Object Profile team

April 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] FileReference / and parent

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 3 Apr 2017, at 21:11, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Sven, > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 06:06:57PM +0200, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: >> That might be OK, I guess, but you have to add enough unit tests to >> cover all edge cases. > > I'll certainly have unit tests in place when I submit the proposed > changes. (the current unit tests have the same results after > applying the code below). > > Which edge cases are you thinking of? As arg: empty / foo/ /foo /foo/ // //foo foo// //foo// /foo//bar/ I guess you get the idea. > Thanks! > Alistair > > >> In the past, the reasoning was, AFAIU, that the right side argument to >> #/ did not get interpreted. >> >> But that indeed gives some inconsistencies. >> >>> On 3 Apr 2017, at 14:04, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I previously suggested a change to Path>>/ which actually covered >>> two issues: >>> >>> 1. The handling of the parent directory notation, i.e. ".." 2. The >>> construction of path segments when appending a string. >>> >>> As Damien pointed out, the first issue needs a bit more >>> consideration. >>> >>> I think the second point is still problematic and can be addressed >>> separately. In particular: >>> >>> ('/a/b/c' asFileReference / 'd/e/f') parent "File @ /a/b/c" >>> >>> I would expect the result to be "File @ /a/b/c/d/e" >>> >>> The fix is straightforward (although someone may be able to propose >>> a more elgant solution): >>> >>> -- >>> / aString | path additionalPath index | >>> >>> aString isEmptyOrNil ifTrue: [ Error signal: 'Path element >>> cannot be empty or nil']. >>> >>> additionalPath := Path from: aString. path := self >>> class new: self size + additionalPath size. path copyFrom: >>> self. index := self size + 1. additionalPath do: [ :each | >>> path at: index put: each. index := index + 1. ]. ^ path >>> -- >>> >>> 1. Do you agree with the proposed change? >>> 2. (Assuming you agree): >>> Should we target Pharo 6.0 or 7.0? On one side, this is clearly a >>> bug, on the other, no one has reported it to date, so it isn't >>> having a big impact. >>> >>> Thanks, Alistair >>> >> >> >

April 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] FileReference / and parent

by Alistair Grant

Hi Sven, On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 06:06:57PM +0200, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > That might be OK, I guess, but you have to add enough unit tests to > cover all edge cases. I'll certainly have unit tests in place when I submit the proposed changes. (the current unit tests have the same results after applying the code below). Which edge cases are you thinking of? Thanks! Alistair > In the past, the reasoning was, AFAIU, that the right side argument to > #/ did not get interpreted. > > But that indeed gives some inconsistencies. > > > On 3 Apr 2017, at 14:04, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I previously suggested a change to Path>>/ which actually covered > > two issues: > > > > 1. The handling of the parent directory notation, i.e. ".." 2. The > > construction of path segments when appending a string. > > > > As Damien pointed out, the first issue needs a bit more > > consideration. > > > > I think the second point is still problematic and can be addressed > > separately. In particular: > > > > ('/a/b/c' asFileReference / 'd/e/f') parent "File @ /a/b/c" > > > > I would expect the result to be "File @ /a/b/c/d/e" > > > > The fix is straightforward (although someone may be able to propose > > a more elgant solution): > > > > -- > > / aString | path additionalPath index | > > > > aString isEmptyOrNil ifTrue: [ Error signal: 'Path element > > cannot be empty or nil']. > > > > additionalPath := Path from: aString. path := self > > class new: self size + additionalPath size. path copyFrom: > > self. index := self size + 1. additionalPath do: [ :each | > > path at: index put: each. index := index + 1. ]. ^ path > > -- > > > > 1. Do you agree with the proposed change? > > 2. (Assuming you agree): > > Should we target Pharo 6.0 or 7.0? On one side, this is clearly a > > bug, on the other, no one has reported it to date, so it isn't > > having a big impact. > > > > Thanks, Alistair > > > >

April 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Today is GSOC deadline

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

Thanks Serge and all the others behind the logistics to make Pharo GSoC possible. Cheers, Offray On 03/04/17 04:07, Serge Stinckwich wrote: > Dear all, > > just a reminder for all mentors&students: the deadline for submitting > your GSOC proposal is today at 6pm CEST. You have to submit the final > pdf paper before that time. > > Thank you. > Regards,

April 3, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] FileReference / and parent

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

That might be OK, I guess, but you have to add enough unit tests to cover all edge cases. In the past, the reasoning was, AFAIU, that the right side argument to #/ did not get interpreted. But that indeed gives some inconsistencies. > On 3 Apr 2017, at 14:04, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I previously suggested a change to Path>>/ which actually covered two > issues: > > 1. The handling of the parent directory notation, i.e. ".." > 2. The construction of path segments when appending a string. > > As Damien pointed out, the first issue needs a bit more consideration. > > I think the second point is still problematic and can be addressed > separately. In particular: > > ('/a/b/c' asFileReference / 'd/e/f') parent "File @ /a/b/c" > > I would expect the result to be "File @ /a/b/c/d/e" > > The fix is straightforward (although someone may be able to propose a > more elgant solution): > > -- > / aString > | path additionalPath index | > > aString isEmptyOrNil > ifTrue: [ Error signal: 'Path element cannot be empty or nil']. > > additionalPath := Path from: aString. > path := self class new: self size + additionalPath size. > path copyFrom: self. > index := self size + 1. > additionalPath do: [ :each | > path at: index put: each. > index := index + 1. > ]. > ^ path > -- > > 1. Do you agree with the proposed change? > 2. (Assuming you agree): Should we target Pharo 6.0 or 7.0? > On one side, this is clearly a bug, on the other, no one has reported > it to date, so it isn't having a big impact. > > Thanks, > Alistair >

April 3, 2017