Giuseppe wrote:
I'm getting this error updating universe from network from different images.
Looks like "Seaside-HTML5-beta version 2.8.411.5" (http://www.squeaksource.com/Seaside/HTML5-pmm.5.mcz) was added with a conflict - but the package defined in the conflict is empty:
<package> <name>Seaside-HTML5-beta</name> <version>2.8.411.5</version> <category>Web Development beta</category> <description>HTML5 support moved out of Seaside2.8</description> <url>http://www.squeaksource.com/Seaside/HTML5-pmm.5.mcz</url> <homepage>http://www.seaside.st/</homepage> <maintainer>keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk</maintainer> <provides></provides> <depends> <packagename>Seaside-beta</packagename></depends> <conflicts> <packagename></packagename></conflicts></package>
But I don't have it installed.
Fails on checking the list then?
El 25/07/2007, a las 22:44, Torsten Bergmann escribió:
Giuseppe wrote:
I'm getting this error updating universe from network from different images.
Looks like "Seaside-HTML5-beta version 2.8.411.5" (http:// www.squeaksource.com/Seaside/HTML5-pmm.5.mcz) was added with a conflict - but the package defined in the conflict is empty:
<package> <name>Seaside-HTML5-beta</name> <version>2.8.411.5</version> <category>Web Development beta</category> <description>HTML5 support moved out of Seaside2.8</description> <url>http://www.squeaksource.com/Seaside/HTML5-pmm.5.mcz</url> <homepage>http://www.seaside.st/</homepage> <maintainer>keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk</maintainer> <provides></provides> <depends> <packagename>Seaside-beta</packagename></depends> <conflicts> <packagename></packagename></conflicts></package>
-- Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
I deleted the offending package with a view to re-submitting it later.
I have been discussing with Lex the possibility of relaxing the "editorial policy" on the development universe so that anyone who has contributed a package can update other packages, so that the universe can be socially policed.
Any thoughts or votes from users of the 'development' universe?
Keith
p.s. Installer now supports package universes including the #answer:with: idiom for interaction free loading.
Installer universe answer: '*some dialog text* with: 'my answer'; install: 'a package'; install: 'b package(1.2.3)'; install.
On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 22:51 +0100, Keith Hodges wrote:
I deleted the offending package with a view to re-submitting it later.
I have been discussing with Lex the possibility of relaxing the "editorial policy" on the development universe so that anyone who has contributed a package can update other packages, so that the universe can be socially policed.
Any thoughts or votes from users of the 'development' universe?
I like the universe stuff. Coming from a linux background using debian for years it seems quite natural to have something like the universe. What is unclear to me is what I can expect from a universe. It's noted that things in the universe "should" work together. But how is it tested that it is working? It is great to have dependencies which are being resolved automatically. But then there are only a few combinations of packages that work well together. I'm missing (of course) something like the channels of stability which you have in debian.
I had a look at the universe editor. It is great the browser comes with an editor and eases the way of updating the universe. The editor could be a source of stability marks, too. Wouldn't it be feasible to vote for stability or veto it? If I installed anything from the universe I should be able to judge about stability. Most important in my opinion is the ability to veto a combination (to mark it as broken). On the other side it might be helpful to harvest additional data at the moment of voting. One package that has dependencies builds a cluster of packages. I think the "should work together" should be meant across all clusters of packages which are in the universe. So, if I vote for some package it is important to know what other packages are installed. Imagine there is another relationship in the universe beside the "depends on" relationship name it "known to work". That would build something like a stable channel automatically. This would make it possible that universe can propose versions to install based on my selection of packages.
My two cents.
Norbert
On 7/26/07, Norbert Hartl norbert@hartl.name wrote:
I had a look at the universe editor. It is great the browser comes with
an editor and eases the way of updating the universe. The editor could be a source of stability marks, too. Wouldn't it be feasible to vote for stability or veto it? If I installed anything from the universe I should be able to judge about stability. Most important in my opinion is the ability to veto a combination (to mark it as broken). On the other side it might be helpful to harvest additional data at the moment of voting. One package that has dependencies builds a cluster of packages. I think the "should work together" should be meant across all clusters of packages which are in the universe. So, if I vote for some package it is important to know what other packages are installed. Imagine there is another relationship in the universe beside the "depends on" relationship name it "known to work". That would build something like a stable channel automatically. This would make it possible that universe can propose versions to install based on my selection of packages.
It is very important to make it easier for people to give feedback on problems so that they can be fixed. Lex, you ought to try things like thia!
-Ralph
May I suggest a mailing list specifically for universe content discussion to support the opening of the "editorial policy" so as to adopt a "social model", rather than an "anarchic model". The server could post to the mailinglist when it receives updates and users could post with feedback.
The posts could be flagged with the universe to which it applies in order to support appropriate filtering.
I have discovered that Universes do not appear to support Monticello dependencies. This means that packages such as 'Magma Server' and variants are not likely to work out of the box.
TimeZoneDatabase is not (as yet) compatible with 3.9 nor 3.10 since It overrides DateAndTime fromSeconds: to return a DateAndTime instance. Users of the subclass TimeStamp fromSeconds: are expecting a TimeStamp instance.
Keith
It is very important to make it easier for people to give feedback on problems so that they can be fixed. Lex, you ought to try things like thia!
-Ralph
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 14:05 +0100, Keith Hodges wrote:
May I suggest a mailing list specifically for universe content discussion to support the opening of the "editorial policy" so as to adopt a "social model", rather than an "anarchic model". The server could post to the mailinglist when it receives updates and users could post with feedback.
The posts could be flagged with the universe to which it applies in order to support appropriate filtering.
I have discovered that Universes do not appear to support Monticello dependencies. This means that packages such as 'Magma Server' and variants are not likely to work out of the box.
TimeZoneDatabase is not (as yet) compatible with 3.9 nor 3.10 since It overrides DateAndTime fromSeconds: to return a DateAndTime instance. Users of the subclass TimeStamp fromSeconds: are expecting a TimeStamp instance.
+1
This is a solution which is easy to setup. Even if my proposal (integrating feedback in the editor/browser) could be done it needs a lot of work. A list would make it possible to develop any model which will be sufficient.
And I wouldn't oppose "social" and "anarchy" that much. That is a tension I often read between the lines (not yours!). The "social" and "anarchy" are also only shades of grey. Having rules and permissions doesn't create a "social" thing and less restrictions do not create anarchy per default :)
What we need is to develop a policy "how" a universe is updated. I wouldn't dare to update a package in the universe which is maintained by another person. But if I would know that "it is working" means that the maintainer tested A,B and C than I can do that on my own. This plus the knowledge that my action is undoable would probably lead me to updating the universe on my own. And this lessens the work of the maintainer. And I think this i wanted, too. If this would work you would get an "anarchy without harm" :)
Another 2 cents (still got 4 left :) )
Norbert
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 14:05 +0100, Keith Hodges wrote:
May I suggest a mailing list specifically for universe content discussion to support the opening of the "editorial policy" so as to adopt a "social model", rather than an "anarchic model". The server could post to the mailinglist when it receives updates and users could post with feedback.
The posts could be flagged with the universe to which it applies in order to support appropriate filtering.
I have discovered that Universes do not appear to support Monticello dependencies. This means that packages such as 'Magma Server' and variants are not likely to work out of the box.
TimeZoneDatabase is not (as yet) compatible with 3.9 nor 3.10 since It overrides DateAndTime fromSeconds: to return a DateAndTime instance. Users of the subclass TimeStamp fromSeconds: are expecting a TimeStamp instance.
Btw. how is the universe XML file being updated? Is the XML file updated as a whole? Are there any concurrency problems?
thanks,
Norbert
I propose we could simply use the seemingly dormant Packages mailing list. Since Universes are indeed collections of packages this would seem appropriate.
The last meaningful post in this mailing list was in Dec 2005.
To subscribe: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/packages
Prefix messages with the [development] universe to which you are referring.
best regards
Keith
p.s. now we just need to ask Lex to open things up a bit.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 02:05:13PM +0100, Keith Hodges wrote:
TimeZoneDatabase is not (as yet) compatible with 3.9 nor 3.10 since It overrides DateAndTime fromSeconds: to return a DateAndTime instance. Users of the subclass TimeStamp fromSeconds: are expecting a TimeStamp instance.
Lex reported this bug and I fixed it back in February. The up to date version (1.2.4) is on SqueakMap (and SqueakSource), but the Universe has not been updated.
I guess it should be my job to fix this, is that right? If so I'll figure it out next week and let you know when it's done (I'm out of town and short of time right now).
Dave
2007/7/29, David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 02:05:13PM +0100, Keith Hodges wrote:
TimeZoneDatabase is not (as yet) compatible with 3.9 nor 3.10 since It overrides DateAndTime fromSeconds: to return a DateAndTime instance. Users of the subclass TimeStamp fromSeconds: are expecting a TimeStamp instance.
Lex reported this bug and I fixed it back in February. The up to date version (1.2.4) is on SqueakMap (and SqueakSource), but the Universe has not been updated.
Ok, I've done it. It loads fine. However, there are 22 failures when I run the tests.
Damien Cassou wrote:
Ok, I've done it. It loads fine. However, there are 22 failures when I run the tests.
If you switch to a VM which doesn't have the TimePlugin then this should go down to 14 FWIW. Here are the failures I get (ignore the 1 error, it is in my own test):
http://www.shaffer-consulting.com/david/FailuresForDave.png
All of these failures seem to be "off by an hour" issues related to DST transitions.
David
I have discovered that Universes do not appear to support Monticello dependencies. This means that packages such as 'Magma Server' and variants are not likely to work out of the box.
I'm late, but just to clarify..
Magma stopped using Monticello dependencies over a year ago and has always been designed as a one-click install that works "out of the box".
2007/7/25, Keith Hodges keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk:
I have been discussing with Lex the possibility of relaxing the "editorial policy" on the development universe so that anyone who has contributed a package can update other packages, so that the universe can be socially policed.
Any thoughts or votes from users of the 'development' universe?
I agree with this. It's frustrating to me to always have to ask Lex when I want to give a package to someone else as recently happened with you and David.
Moreover, I tend to always prefer bazaar-like process where everyone can do whatever he wants and the next user can undo the previous commit (as in wikipedia, seaside...). I would like to try that kind of process for the future release of Squeak but I may not have support from the foundation and I'm not in any release team.
El 7/26/07 7:20 AM, "Damien Cassou" damien.cassou@gmail.com escribió:
Moreover, I tend to always prefer bazaar-like process where everyone can do whatever he wants and the next user can undo the previous commit (as in wikipedia, seaside...). I would like to try that kind of process for the future release of Squeak but I may not have support from the foundation and I'm not in any release team.
-- Damien Cassou
Anarchy... Not to far...
Edgar
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Chris Muller -
Damien Cassou -
David Shaffer -
David T. Lewis -
Edgar J. De Cleene -
Giuseppe Luigi Punzi Ruiz -
Keith Hodges -
Norbert Hartl -
Ralph Johnson -
Torsten Bergmann