On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, José Luis Redrejo Rodríguez wrote:
2009/12/16 K. K. Subramaniam subbukk@gmail.com
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 11:47:50 pm José Luis Redrejo wrote:
b) has caused the current delay in Debian, because I've been waiting for
6
months, just in case anybody wants to help. I've already given up, so I will upload the latest version before the end of this month. Before the setting up of the collaborative project I kept the squeak-vm very
updated
in Debian. In fact I used to compile it from svn, to get the latest patches, trying to make the images work with the newest plugins.
José,
What do you think of the new launcher scripts - squeak and squeak.sh? Do they have enough flexibility for a distro packager?
squeak.sh has the same problem I've discussed once again in this list for the last four years: they are developer focused. I don't have anything against a developer view, but I want the squeak packages being end-user friendly. I'm very focused/biased on the educational uses of Squeak, and I don't think a console script is a good idea these days. I will integrate the changes these scripts have, so the one I use in the package can be called from a terminal, but I want to keep the gnome/kde and mime integration I added to the squeak-vm package.
Quoted from http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2009-August/003092.html "Another script, squeak.sh, is intended to launch Squeak from a menu. It's begging for improvement."
Levente
Building plugins is currently painful, I agree. Perhaps there should be two packages - squeakvm (runtime) and squeakvm-dev (plugin development).
The problem comes when new etoys images do need those plugins to work properly, and they are just experimental works somebody does and nobody maintains later.
(branching this discussion to vm-dev)
I'm subscribed to vm-dev, so no cc'ed is needed.
Regards José L.
Subbu
vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org