OK, if the MetacelloRepository on squeaksource can still serve as reference, I'm perfectly OK with it, I don't know why I had this impression that anything beginning with those 6 letters was going to be seen as a problem ;)
2014-03-22 18:53 GMT+01:00 Johan Brichau <[email protected]>: > Why can you not reference the main repository? The meta repository is just > a place where the configuration loader tool fetches them. > > Platform-specific elements go in the separate 'sections' of a baseline or > version method. > > Don't make separate branches of the same ConfigurationOf class. You will > not only make your life hard but also confuse all users! > > Maybe you can explain why you think you need those? > > Johan > > On 22 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Nicolas Cellier < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I have some packages A that depend on another package B. > In Metacello, I can easily declare the dependency > > spec > className: 'ConfigurationOfB'; > versionString: #'stable'; > repository: 'http://www.squeaksource.com/MetacelloRepository' ]. > > But the repository is hardcoded here. > > My problem is that I'd like to edit a ConfigurationOfA valid for pharo > 1.x, 2.0.x and 3.0.x (so far so good) and put a copy in MetaRepoForPharo20 > and another copy in MetaRepoForPharo30. > > Since the repository is hardcoded, this is going to be a problem because > the MetaRepo will then cross-ref other repositories and weaken robustness > or miss uptodate ConfigurationOfB... > > I'd like to avoid maintaining many branches of ConfigurationOfA. > > How do others resolve this? > >
