Re: SqueakMap in the image (was Re: Incorporating removals & KCP stuff)

Michael Rueger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim Rowledge wrote:
> 
> 
> > most importantly to talk to it from a 'sensible' image. Personally I think
> > that the remote part is going to end up far more important than merely
> > shrinking the image. Remote debugging, clusters of images, all sorts of
> > possibilities.
> 
> Which John Sarkela has been telling us for years ;-)
> And I completely agree!
Yup, that's life. Eliot & I (and various other folk from the Manchester
Uni. group for example) were trying to get stuff like this done, with
some small success, back in 89-90. We didn't consider it actually a new
idea even then. Maybe fifteen years later we'll get around to making a
good version?

tim
-- 
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
I smell a wumpus.
From [email protected] Fri May 23 05:00:44 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 16293 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 05:00:43 -0000
Received: from mail136.mail.bellsouth.net (HELO imf48bis.bellsouth.net)
	(205.152.58.96)
	by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 23 May 2003 05:00:43 -0000
Received: from riskmetrics.com ([68.154.66.58]) by imf48bis.bellsouth.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.04.25 201-253-122-122-125-20020815) with ESMTP
          id <[email protected]>
          for <[email protected]>;
          Fri, 23 May 2003 01:02:54 -0400
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 01:00:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation] SqueakMap in the image (was Re: Incorporating
	removals & KCP stuff)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Doug Way <[email protected]>
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 05:00:44 -0000


I just wanted to mention that the idea of including the SM bootstrap in 
the update stream sounds reasonable to me.

And...

On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 12:27 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [Add SM into 3.6 using update stream to do package installation]
>> Sounds good to me. BTW, you mentioned the current update stream seems 
>> to
>> be leading to Minimal. I think that at least for 3.6 it should be
>> leading us towards Basic.
>
> Well, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. And these things are hard to
> reason about. What I meant is that the update stream feeds updates that
> is producing the Minimal *image*. BUT... with the packages installed
> turning it defacto into Basic.
>
> If we said that the update stream is aiming to produce Basic then...
> What does that mean? Does it mean that we aren't "packageifying" the
> stuff that we intend to have in Basic? Nope. PackageInfo is a package.
> And so is SM.
>
> IMHO this means we are in fact working towards Minimal when we consider
> the *image* (without installed packages) but if we consider *with
> packages* then we surely are aiming for Basic.

Yeah, I suppose.  I guess it depends on whether you consider the 
"image" to include these installed packages.  Practically speaking, the 
packages are in the image file, they just weren't added via the update 
stream. :-)  But I see your point.

One other side issue... we may or may not want to move straight to the 
Basic image and then the Minimal image after that.  For example, you 
could argue that SUnit should be part of the Basic image.  (It is a 
pretty fundamental development tool, although it's not one of the 
traditional ST80 tools.)  In that case, we've already strayed from the 
Basic image by removing it.

- Doug Way