On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:09:42PM +0200, St?phane Ducasse wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > > > Issue 5796: Integrate OSProcess > > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=5796 > > > > Are we doing this? If so, are we forking it (I hope not), or just > > integrating updated package versions as Dave releases them? > > This is an interesting question. I know that Camillo and Damien or somebody > else made pipeable working. > I suggested that the code is sent to dave for integration in his package. (I > do not know if this was done). Now if we really want to have a > strong interoperation with the rest of the world either OSProcess has a pharo > branch and a nice packaging > or may be this is time to fork. I could understand that dave does not have > cycles to handle that. > > Forking in itself is not a bad process when it serves a clear purpose. Look > at Pharo. We did it not just for fun (and it was never an easy solution > after all the effort we did since years to promote Squeak - books, videos, > lectures?.) but to accomplish a vision. > > So if we get a really hyper cool system to execute commands like ` in ruby > then I want it immediately at the price of forking :) > > Stef >
PipeableOSProcess should be working in Pharo now. A Metacello configuration to load OSProcess plus part of CommandShell (PipeableOSProcess and related classes) might be helpful for Pharo. I'm not working on that, so that might be a good thing for someone to do. Dave
