On Feb 27, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Frank Shearar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27 February 2013 07:51, Serge Stinckwich <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Frank Shearar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 26 February 2013 18:33, Esteban A. Maringolo <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> 2013/2/26 Marcus Denker <[email protected]>: >>>>> On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:33 PM, "Esteban A. Maringolo" >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> If you count the number of packages in SmalltalkHub and compare them >>>>>> to the ones in Npmjs.org, it is impressive how much we have. >>>>> But isn't "package" more like "repository" on smalltalkhub? >>>> >>>> It is a Project, but on the explore screen it says Packages, so... who >>>> knows? :) >>>> >>>> But it is true that GitHub is to SmalltakHub what npm/gem is to...? >>> >>> No. GitHub and SmalltalkHub are repositories. Rubygems for Ruby (or >>> clojars for Clojure, or CPAN for Perl) - are like SqueakMap - catalogs >>> that point to packages/applications. >> >> IHMO, we don't need SqueakMap anymore. If we have ConfigurationOfXXX >> packages for each project and >> a different repositories for each Pharo distribution (like the one we >> have already in SqueakSource), I guess we are very close >> to the service proposed by SqueakMap. > > Sure, see Stef's and my recent exchange. I guess when I say > "SqueakMap" I should say "SM-like". I don't necessarily mean using the > existing SM, although it's perfectly usable (despite the rather aged > web UI) - Chris Muller and I nag people into adding their packages to > the catalog on a regular basis - but Stef wants something like what SM > provides only in an assured fashion - "this package definitely works > with this version because we tried it". Did you solve the problem that it was wasting ca. 4MB if memory because it had a copy of the complete catalog (everything but the files) on the client? Marcus
