I have located in class FileDirectory (and, IMO, the wrongest place for this to be) the spot where Squeak complains if the Changes and Sources files are missing/unreadable/unwritable. To trim down my end- user distribution, I'd like to silence the complaints and not include these files (my user base will not be accessing Squeak in such a way that these files will be beneficial to them).
I did a couple of class-recompilation tests, which seem to work fine.
The question is: can I get away with not including either of these files in an installation where some classes/methods will be re- compiled via update streams? Is there some hidden necessity to having these two files present in the installation?
Eric Fournier University Technology Development Center University of Minnesota Office of Information Technology emf@umn.edu
Am 02.02.2006 um 21:29 schrieb Fournier Eric:
I have located in class FileDirectory (and, IMO, the wrongest place for this to be) the spot where Squeak complains if the Changes and Sources files are missing/unreadable/unwritable. To trim down my end-user distribution, I'd like to silence the complaints and not include these files (my user base will not be accessing Squeak in such a way that these files will be beneficial to them).
There are two preferences for this
warnIfNoChangesFile warnIfNoSourcesFile
Just disable them.
The question is: can I get away with not including either of these files in an installation where some classes/methods will be re- compiled via update streams?
Yes.
Is there some hidden necessity to having these two files present in the installation?
No.
You might want to look at the Squeakland distribution, it does not include source files either.
- Bert -
The question is: can I get away with not including either of these files in an installation where some classes/methods will be re-compiled via update streams?
Yes.
Is there some hidden necessity to having these two files present in the installation?
No.
You might want to look at the Squeakland distribution, it does not include source files either.
Before relying on this, it would be advisable to remove your source files and *then* recompile the entire system (...recompileAll...). This should work fine, but I don't know that current maintainers do this kind of stress test (it is demanding of the decompiler) at every release.
- Dan
Hi dan
do you have a check list of all the actions to be done in that way? So that we learned. Mike produced some scripts in ReleaseBuilder and I plan to study them soon now.
Stef
The question is: can I get away with not including either of these files in an installation where some classes/methods will be re-compiled via update streams?
Yes.
Is there some hidden necessity to having these two files present in the installation?
No.
You might want to look at the Squeakland distribution, it does not include source files either.
Before relying on this, it would be advisable to remove your source files and *then* recompile the entire system (...recompileAll...). This should work fine, but I don't know that current maintainers do this kind of stress test (it is demanding of the decompiler) at every release.
- Dan
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bert Freudenberg -
Dan Ingalls -
Fournier Eric -
stéphane ducasse