Re: Fwd: Packages in both the image and SqueakMap ofPackageInfo))

Hi Ned and all!

Ned Konz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sunday 13 July 2003 07:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > Back from fishing.
> 
> Hope your mosquito bites aren't too bad!

Well, not too bad. Actually, the mosquitos aren't the worst. In the
evening the so called "knott" (gnat) - they are similar to sandflies -
makes it quite unbearable. But we had a slight breeze which is perfect,
then they aren't around.

Got 50 perch over three evenings - perfect to "smoke" and then have on
the special Norrland thin bread.

Anyway, it was great.
 
> > Just note that it really isn't as simple as just creating the
> > directory. The reason SM doesn't check for the existence of the
> > directory is that it SHOULD be there. If it isn't there then we
> > have an SMSqueakMap instance but no corresponding log file - not a
> > proper situation. They should always exist together and in synch.
> 
> What happens to me is that I'll copy an image into a new directory, or 
> put a new image into a directory that has an old sm/ directory in it.
> 
> I think what happens is that the logic about loading full vs. updating 
> needs to be looked at, based on the existence and contents of the sm 
> directory.

Exactly, I have fixed this now and some more. Just published it - both
SqueakMap Base 1.06 and SqueakMap 1.07. Tested installation in a 5331
image (updated from 5259 first), seems to work fine. 

Please test as much as possible and post bug reports. I will scan for
them the next few days. I did just realize that the sequence number
introduced in the installedPackages Dictionary obviously makes less
sense when a package is reinstalled... Ah well.

Gotta go.

regards, Göran