It seems there were still some class extensions in the package Seaside-Pharo20-Core that were using the '*seaside-pharo-core' method protocol name. This is because the package was originally just a copy of the Seaside-Pharo-Core package, and there was a (now solved) bug in Nautilus at the time the package was renamed.
It's fixed now in the #bleedingEdge Johan On 16 Feb 2014, at 15:26, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote: > Hm… don’t really know but I guess they could come fromt the configuration. If > you look for the string ‘seaside-pharo’ in the image then you’ll see that > those packages are specified in the configuration. But if you really want to > know you’ll probably have to step through a loading cycle with Metacello… > good luck with that :) > > > On 16.02.2014, at 14:57, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As far as I can see, there is no such package, at all, that is why I am >> puzzled ;-) >> >> On 16 Feb 2014, at 14:50, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If you’ve loaded Seaside-Pharo then those extensions would be in the >>> Seaside-Pharo package, wouldn’t they? >>> >>> >>> On 16.02.2014, at 14:15, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> When using the latest Seaside on Pharo 3 (either loading >>>> ConfigurationOfBootstrap or the Seaside image, 3.0 bleedingEdge, built on >>>> the pharo-contribution CI server), I have two mysterious dirty packages >>>> without a repository: >>>> >>>> - Seaside-pharo-core >>>> - Seaside-pharo-core-backtracking >>>> >>>> These only contain extensions. There are no such Seaside package as far as >>>> I can see. >>>> >>>> What puzzles me is how the code got in the image in the first place: I can >>>> understand that these are possible wrong extension protocol names, but >>>> since they must be loaded by an MC package, how did they get into that >>>> package in the first place ? >>>> >>>> Sven >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sven Van Caekenberghe >>>> http://stfx.eu >>>> Smalltalk is the Red Pill >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
