Today on the squeak-dev list this link was posted, which I hadn't seen. http://builder.seaside.st/ It lets you choose from the web page all the options that you want, then it lets you download a build script or monticello configuration to load all the parts. It seems like building one of these for Pharo dev (or core) might be awesome. Just click the things you want, if some are mutually exclusive the website can show that (radio button rather than checkbox). Then download the base image, and drag your script onto it. Everyone can get what they want, and nobody has to fight about which browser is best.
Mike Mike Hales Engineering Manager KnowledgeScape www.kscape.com 2010/1/20 laurent laffont <[email protected]> > May be this is off topic, but when I was working in embedded linux > development I have used a cool tool to customize its own linux image before > downloading it. It's narcissus from angstrom distribution: > http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/narcissus/ > > For me, a Pharo image and a linux distribution are quite similar when > talking about packages. With Metacello, Loader and Seaside, may be such a > tool to configure your image to download is not a big deal ? So everybody > can easily choose between OB, O2 or both, WorkingSet / Algernon, AidaWeb / > Seaside, .... > > Laurent > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I agree with this solution. >> >> As much as it pains me to work with OB (and I forced myself to do it >> for 2 weeks :)), it is stable and this issue prevails at this moment >> for 1.0. >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> On 20 Jan 2010, at 19:10, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Lienhard <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > Hi Mariano, >> > >> > > 2) Install only OB >> > >> > is a reasonable choice. We are very close to a 1.0 release and >> > including OB again at this point does not make sense. The risk for >> > unknown bugs that we needed to fix in maintenance releases of 1.0 is >> > too high in my opinion. >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks Adrian. I didn't want to say it, but yes. I think like you. >> > WE NEED TO RELEASE 1.0 NOW!!!! and as much as stable possible. >> > >> > For new comers, I think it is even easier to have only one browser. >> > Having two, bring to confussion, insecurity, etc. Once the newcomer >> > stop to be newcomer, he will be able to install O2 by himself and >> > take his own opinion on both browsers. >> > >> > And come on...that's the idea of Metacello!! that each people can >> > load whatever they want. >> > >> > so.... +1 (ouch...I have already voted!) >> > >> > However, when we start building images for 1.1 we should consider to >> > add it again. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Adrian >> > >> > On Jan 20, 2010, at 17:44 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >> > >> > >> That's the reason of having OB and O2. While both now work >> > together in the >> > >> same image >> > >> without inferring each other, this indeed increases the number of >> > classes >> > >> in the image >> > >> quite a lot as they duplicate a whole bunch of code. So I >> > strongly suggest >> > >> to either use >> > >> OB or O2, even though you can have both. But I do not see a >> > reason why >> > >> people want to >> > >> switch between the two dynamically in the same image. >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > We have two things to choose: which browser is default and which >> > ones are >> > > installed. Both ? only one ? The solution I like most, is in >> > these options: >> > > >> > > 1) Install both: OB and O2. Let OB as default. >> > > >> > > 2) Install only OB, of course, as default, and those who wants can >> > install >> > > O2 in that dev image. They way to install O2 now is very easy. >> > > >> > > 3) Install only OB, of course, as default, but create a group in >> > > ConfigurationOfPharo like "StandardDevImageWithO2" so that those >> > people who >> > > want a dev image with O2 can just evaluate that in a core image >> > and wala! >> > > >> > > With 1 the image will be smaller but won't have O2 preinstalled. >> > With 2) and >> > > 3) you will have also O2 but bigger image. >> > > >> > > I think I will coose 2) AND 3). Those who want to install O2 >> > directly in a >> > > dev image, use the ConfigurationOfO2 and those who wants to create >> > a dev >> > > image over the core, they use ConfigurationOfPharo with the new >> > group I can >> > > create. >> > > >> > > What do you think ? >> > > >> > > Mariano >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Pharo-project mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Pharo-project mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Pharo-project mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
