Proposal about SqueakMap etc (was Re: [squeak-dev] Re: SqueakMap soon working in 4.0/4.1!)

Ralph Johnson johnson at
Thu Apr 8 15:54:58 UTC 2010

2010/4/8 Göran Krampe <goran at>

> Hi!
> Ralph Johnson wrote:
>> One of the "big ideas" of Package Universe is that a universe is only for
>> one version of the image.  In other words, there was a PU for 3.9 and one
>> for 3.11.  If you are going to use PU in 4.1 then you will have to set up a
>> universe for it.
>> The nice thing about thie idea is that within a universe, you can pretty
>> much expect all the packages to work together.  You con't have to search for
>> the right version to load.  You just say which packages you want, and the
>> system will load all the prerequisite packages, and get the right version of
>> each.
> Yes, and my idea for "marrying" PU and SM was simply to create a new kind
> of "package" in SM which is a "Universe". Because if we disregard the
> tooling/UI etc - a Universe could be equal to a list of SM package releases
> that work fine in a given image. Simple as that.

Yes, that would be very valuable.

> Now, sure, we still need some rudimentary dependency mechanism - but I
> still am convinced that the above would work fine. Since SM allows assigning
> people as co-maintainers etc, a small group of people could maintain such a
> "list" together, and it would of course be independent of other such
> Universes etc.

And the other thing that PU provided was a dependency mechanism.  If  you
had both of those, you would eliminate the need for PU.

> The BIG upside of this is that the actual releases and packages are
> maintained ONCE, and not in two redundant places (SM and PU).

Yes.  And one of the problems with PU was that it causes people to stop
putting things in SM, so not only did PU never have a goal of having a
complete set of packages, but it detracted from SM reaching that goal.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list