Re: SmaCC-Development (was: Allow MIT-licensed code to be partof"SqueakOfficial"?)

This could go either way.  The ability to change the old compiler was 
built-in to the Basic release before, so perhaps SmaCC-Development 
should be part of the Basic release.  On the other hand, it is easily 
available from SqueakMap, and relatively few developers will want the 
convenience of having it built in to Basic.

I think it probably should be part of Basic (eventually), but until we 
have SM 2.1 with configurations and have the Basic image split up into 
packages/modules, it's probably more trouble than it's worth to include 
it.  (It would need to be another in-image package.)

- Doug


On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 01:36 PM, ducasse wrote:

> hi anthony
>
> SmaCC-Development will be on squeakmac so everybody will be able to 
> change it.
>
> Stef
>
>
> On Dimanche, nov 23, 2003, at 19:32 Europe/Zurich, Anthony Hannan 
> wrote:
>
>> I hope your planning on including SmaCC-Development and not just
>> SmaCC-Runtime.  It wouldn't be Squeak if we could not change the 
>> Parser
>> within itself.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tony
>>
>> Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 02:21 AM, [email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> There seems to be agreement that allowing the MIT license into 
>>>>> "Squeak
>>>>> Official" (Full/Basic) is reasonable.  (And also possibly BSD, but 
>>>>> we
>>>>> might as well put that off until it is needed.
>>>> [SNIP of stuff I totally agree on]
>>>>
>>>> Yes, all sounds good.
>>>
>>> Alright, I'll incorporate SmaCC-Runtime in the next round of updates
>>> then.  It will be handled as an "in-image" package for now, so we can
>>> keep track of the MIT-licensed code... the master copy of SmaCC will 
>>> be
>>> on SqueakMap, and I'll just include the package as an update.
>>>
>>> Hm, I notice the SmaCC Runtime package on SqueakMap says "Other
>>> License" at the moment, that should be changed to "MIT".  Markus G.,
>>> could you update this?  Hm, also the package itself is a SAR at the
>>> moment (containing only one .st file)... it would be better if it 
>>> were
>>> a .st or .cs file instead, so I don't have to keep converting from 
>>> .sar
>>> by hand every time I incorporate a new version as a changeset update.
>>> (Not that that will probably happen very often, but...)
>>>
>>> - Doug
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Squeakfoundation mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>> _______________________________________________
>> Squeakfoundation mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation