Sounds like this is getting away from beta issues and into maintenance
issues and perhaps the discussion should be moved General as this concerns
anyone using pacman (or JAL) beyond clicking the Package Manager button off
the Run menu. And I got what I deserved for blindly running something copied
from a forum message without understanding what it did.

I had assumed that JAL worked like IBM's SMP and I thought it did requisite
checking. Apparently it does not. And I had avoided studying JAL because I
thought it was like SMP, one of the most boring tools I ever had to use. So
I started reading about JAL this morning.

The distinction between (re)install and upgrade. To what level does install
go? Is it the original (version 0) level or does it install to the latest?
Why is there even an upgrade option? Shouldn't reinstall imply upgrade?

Apparently there are conflicts between base and gtk. Same script files
included in both, but not the same. Not good. Here is where requisite
checking is really needed.

In the beta the base directory does not have the same meaning as "base" does
for JAL. For JAL, base means that which is needed to run the development
system. The base directory in the beta is projects for us to play with.
Which includes stuff not in JAL base.
I think that the distinction between what is needed to run the development
system and gtk is blurring. Maybe non-existent. Why is gtk and gtkide not
part of system or JAL base? Or will they be merged in when J7 leaves beta?

I had forgotten that the base directory in the beta was for us to play with
build etc. Bill told me that I didn't need to put those scripts from the
latest build into base. I am not sure that is correct. If I were to do a
build from the base directory I think that I would have replaced those
updated scripts with old ones had I not updated those scripts in base as
well.

I think I have a lot of reading to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to