Get a complete Universe for 2.9

[GoogleCodeExporter]

see summary

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jfitz...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2008 at 5:58

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Code for core packages exists. Distributions/bundles is missing and external 
packages (Kom/Swazoo). I'll be two 
days in the army so I should have time for this.

Original comment by philippe...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2008 at 6:26

• Changed state: Started
• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It loads now. What is basically left is how we name the versions. To quote Lex:

As the system stands, you would have to number the releases differently.  A 
simple
and immediate workaround would be for the final version to be explicitly named
"gamma" or "final".  For example, "2.9.0beta" versus "2.9.0gamma".

I don't like this because I'd like to have a "clean" final version 2.9.0. I 
tend to
something like:

"2.8.999alpha1" "2.8.999beta1" "2.8.999rc1"

Opinions?

Original comment by philippe...@gmail.com on 2 Oct 2008 at 5:16

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

don't forget the LGPL packages like Seaside-Filesystem

Original comment by philippe...@gmail.com on 18 Oct 2008 at 9:45

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

we can always do a first alpha with just a load script...

Original comment by jfitz...@gmail.com on 22 Oct 2008 at 9:24

• Added labels: Priority-Low
• Removed labels: Priority-Critical

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by jfitz...@gmail.com on 3 Nov 2008 at 7:36

• Added labels: Milestone-2.9a2
• Removed labels: Milestone-2.9alpha

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What is the status of this one? Is this still a todo for Seaside 2.9a2?

Original comment by renggli on 27 Dec 2008 at 2:08

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yeah, it's still at me.

Original comment by philippe...@gmail.com on 27 Dec 2008 at 3:26

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The Script Builder is already able to produce complete Universes. However I 
encountered issues and concluded 
that Package Universe is incapable to load working configurations of Seaside, 
due to the following reasons:

- Dependencies of a single package are not always loaded in the specified order.

- It is not possible to have inverse dependencies, that would be necessary to 
cleanly load the associate 
Squeak package after the main package. For example when you load 
Seaside-Development, you want that 
Seaside-Squeak-Development is automatically loaded afterwards without that the 
user has to select it 
manually.

- It is unclear to me how to have multiple branches available at the same time, 
while people can upgrade and 
downgrade easily within reasonable bounds. Package Universe only allows to go 
to the latest version. 

- Furthermore I don't see how new universes can be added to all the images 
out-there, there is no meta-
universe/package-overlay/... that works without patching Package Universes.

Cheers,
Lukas

Original comment by renggli on 27 Dec 2008 at 3:58

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> - It is not possible to have inverse dependencies

This should, of course, be handled by "provides" and "requires" but apparently 
Universes doesn't really support 
those concepts.

Original comment by jfitz...@gmail.com on 27 Dec 2008 at 4:44

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> > - It is not possible to have inverse dependencies
> 
> This should, of course, be handled by "provides" and 
> "requires" but apparently Universes doesn't really support 
> those concepts.

Instead of "Inverse Dependencies" I should probably have called those "Postload 
Dependencies".

Original comment by renggli on 27 Dec 2008 at 5:01

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Luckily MC2 will help remove the issue around the load order of the packages. 
Elements that cannot yet be 
loaded are just left in the slush until they can be.

Original comment by jfitz...@gmail.com on 28 Dec 2008 at 1:57

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

When will MC2 be ready so that we can move the development over (i haven't 
looked into it lately)?

Original comment by renggli on 28 Dec 2008 at 2:39

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Regarding comment 8:

"Inverse dependencies" is a concept Seaside invented. It's simply a UI issue, 
make 
two categories one called "Seaside" and one called "Seaside enabling features". 
The 
user should only select stuff from "Seaside" and stuff from "Seaside enabling 
features" get selected automatically. If a package has an "inverse dependency" 
then 
put it into "Seaside enabling features" and the inverse dependency into 
"Seaside". 
And vice versa if it's not an inverse dependency.

Once you have loaded a specific version of Seaside up- or downgrading to a 
different 
version (2.x to 2.y) is impossible with any technology (MC, CS, Universes, 
...). 
That is simply a Squeak issue.

Having different branches for Seaside is supported by having a Universe for 
each. 
Eg, make a universe for Seaside 2.9 and one for 2.10 and mix that into your 
other 
universe. Putting Seaside into a Squeak or Pharo Universe is a stupid idea and 
bound 
to cause pain. This has all been discussed previously so I'm surprised that 
this FUD 
comes up now.

New universes can be rolled out easily with a simple do it.

Original comment by philippe...@gmail.com on 28 Dec 2008 at 8:49

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

1. Complicated, but could work indeed. Given that universes sorts complicated 
dependencies correctly (I don't 
think so)?

2. This already works. I can easily update a Seaside 2.8 image to 2.8.1 to 
2.8.2 to 2.8.3 by loading the 
respective Monticello packages.

3. I know it is easy to roll out new releases, but it is terribly difficult to 
make them available within the 
Universe GUI in the image. Either you have to patch Universes or evaluate a 
series of do-its to make it 
available.

The question is will it be ready for Seaside 2.9a2? I think Seaside 2.9a2 is 
long overdue.

Original comment by renggli on 28 Dec 2008 at 9:13

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I don't know if it's long overdue but we should release and I don't think it 
matters whether there is a universe for 
any particular alpha release. When it works, we can offer it.

As for MC2, I'm imagine there will be something useable before the 2.9 series 
is ready for a full release but 
couldn't say when exactly. Whether it will be useable enough that we want to 
commit all our users to using it, of 
course, is another question. We might end up wanting to use MC2 ourselves and 
releasing MC1 packages for a 
while.

Original comment by jfitz...@gmail.com on 29 Dec 2008 at 11:13

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It is just that it is marked as Milestone-2.9a2. I removed that tag for now.

Original comment by renggli on 29 Dec 2008 at 11:16

• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: Milestone-2.9a2

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Not relevant anymore. Universes are dead.

Original comment by renggli on 11 Aug 2009 at 5:26

• Changed title: Get a complete Universe for 2.9
• Changed state: Invalid
• Added labels: ****
• Removed labels: ****