2006/12/26, Alan Lovejoy squeak-dev.sourcery@forum-mail.net:
Matin,
I use a .sar for the Squeak version of Chronos, which is available on SqueakMap. One reason is simply that Avi still owns the Monticello-based Chronos package on SqueakSource, meaning I can't update it (and by the way, Avi only ever uploaded his very initial Chronos port, which will break your image unless you are using a Squeak version < 3.7.) But more relevant to this discussion is the fact that the "preamble" and "postscript" scripts in a .sar make it easy to optionally install some modules (or install different versions of the same module) based on the version of Squeak into which Chronos is being imported. I don't believe Monticello supports that capability.
Monticello would actually support postscripts and preambles but the Package-Info version in standard Squeak does not.
Personally I perfer MCZ because it is integrated in our build process.
Cheers Philippe
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Martin Beck Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:37 PM To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list Subject: sar or mcz?
Hi there, what kind of installable package files is the preferred one at the moment: .sar or .mcz? FYI, i want to automatically execute some code after loading the package. I found in a mailinglist, that in a .sar you can state this in install/postscript and in a .mcz you can use class-side startup: message. But .sars don't seem to be really used - am i right?
Regards, Martin
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org