Hi Esteban, > we moved the paradigm a couple of years ago: each Pharo version comes with his own VM version Thanks for clarification. I see your point. Will it be always the same way or it should be changed once VM and Pharo 6 are stabilized?
How update scenario should be handled in this case on the user side? Will it be File-out and File-in for all user changes? And unfortunately this doesn't add clarity on why Pharo 5 is so unstable out of the box and if there any plans to fix existing issues in Pharo 5. Do you have any thoughts on this matter? Can we help with this? On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 29 Mar 2017, at 11:39, Peter Uhnak <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:05:28AM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > >> well… > >> > >> Latest VM is intended to work with latest Pharo, not with older > versions. > >> Latest VM is *always* an experimental/unstable VM that needs to be > considered… that, experimental and unstable. Otherwise there would not be > point on having the distinction between stable/latest, isn’t? > >> > > > >> So, no, Latest VM (which can also be known as “alpha vm”) has not > broken FT, it works fine in Pharo 6.0, which can also be know as “Pharo 6.0 > Alpha”). > >> > >> BTW… That’s why in zeroconf you cannot download a “latest vm for Pharo > 5”. > >> > >> Of course, you can live at the edge, but that doesn’t means something > is broken when something fails if premises are not fulfilled :) > > > > Well considering VM for Pharo 5 never worked for me properly, whether it > was crashing on BitBlt/Cairo, FT, or who knows what, I don't really have a > choice but to use the latest. If there is a better way then I am all ears, > constantly dealing with crashing VM when I need to get work done is > extremely frustrating... > > > > Also I was under the impression that newer VM should work with older > images, with the only exception being Cog/Spur change. Or should I have six > different VMs and Pharo Launcher with six different VM configurations? > > we moved the paradigm a couple of years ago: each Pharo version comes with > his own VM version (Other smalltalks do that too). > Being infinite backward compatible is a lot of pain :) > > so yes, PharoLauncher needs to adapt to it… I added that requirement for > PharoLauncher: you ship with latest stable but you can always download > newers or olders (this is not yet implemented, is just a requirement I > added… well, couple of years ago when we changed the way we wanted VMs to > work). > > Esteban > > > > > Peter > > > >> > >> Said that… I had no problems with Latest VM + Pharo 6.0 (and they may > happen, since this is all alfa :P) > >> > >> I don’t know if “workarounding the VM” (by renaming libfreetype) will > work, but if that works, ONCE we move latest vm to stable status we can > consider backporting it to Pharo 5. > >> > >> Esteban > >> > >>> On 29 Mar 2017, at 10:37, Peter Uhnak <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> The new "fixed" compactor VM has broken FT... > >>> > >>> So any text drawn on Athens canvas results in red cross... > >>> > >>> Error in... > >>> > >>> CairoFontFace class>>primFtFace:loadFlags: > >>> > >>> 'Unable to find function address' > >>> > >>> Apparently because someone renamed libfreetype-6.dll to libfreetype.dll > >>> > >>> (Windows VM latest, Pharo 5) > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > -- Regards, Stanislav S. Krupoderov
