Yes we should. Now I think that the community does not really realise
how much work it is to produce Pharo. And we cannot and will not do everything.
At the end of the day, if pharoers are not able to give 30 min of their time to
improve then it will stay like that.
I mean if marcus, me and other spent time reviewing, fixing typos on the web
then it means that object-centric debugger will not show up.
You see we have only a limited amount of resources.
So this is good to see all these wishes and needs. I have plenty of them too.
But at the end of the day when we do the check if pharoers do not contribute
then we will have less done. This is as simple as that.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote:
> I know we've struggled with this over the years, especially with the 32-bit
> libs. But now we have a lot of infrastructure that seems to be successfully
> building/running the VM on various flavors - OBS, travis, etc. Shouldn't one
> (or all) of these CI tools reliably have the latest installation script
> including the 32-bit libs? It seems like we should just link to one of these
> sources rather than depend on someone updating a text file, no?
> Is the following just such a source?
> Also, is OBS working? For example, the following gives a 404:
> Finally, if someone is not too particular about which Linux flavor to use on
> their (probably headless) server, what is the easiest to install/most stable
> for Pharo?
> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html