| 1 |
Hello, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I am writing this email to ask for opinions and discuss some issues |
| 4 |
of the SmallTalk packages that we have in the tree. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
We currently have the following smalltalk implementations in the tree (STI): |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
dev-lang/gnu-smalltalk |
| 9 |
dev-lang/smalltalkx |
| 10 |
dev-lang/squeak |
| 11 |
dev-lang/squeak-basicimage |
| 12 |
dev-lang/squeak-fullimage |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Let's consider the following points about the STI's before we go on: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
1 - They are usually written in smalltalk itself (e.g squeak). |
| 17 |
2 - STI's don't make a clear distinction between the programming language, |
| 18 |
the IDE and even the installer of the implementation. |
| 19 |
3 - STI's have their own configuration scripts |
| 20 |
(dialog-based sometimes) to customize and compile (from point 2 also). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Because of these reasons, and probably others i forget at the moment, |
| 23 |
vendors usually |
| 24 |
release the STI's in binary form, with all the standard classes compiled |
| 25 |
by default, |
| 26 |
only making a compilation necessary if the user needs a very specific |
| 27 |
feature _and_ |
| 28 |
which is usually enabled through special scripts/options/magic/vodoo and |
| 29 |
that aren't really something |
| 30 |
easy to tweak with our ebuilds. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Now, for a brief report of these packages in our tree: |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
dev-lang/squeak-*: compiles/installs fine so far. Though |
| 35 |
it isn't the latest stable release, who takes care of this package |
| 36 |
anyway?, i heard someone was proposing to remove it from the tree actually. |
| 37 |
(yes, kind of hard to mantain) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
dev-lang/gnu-smalltalk: compiles *fine* , though |
| 40 |
we need to patch it with kind of an ugly hack to |
| 41 |
allow re-installations of the implementation. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
dev-lang/smalltalkx: this package is _horribly_ |
| 44 |
outdated, plus, it doesn't compile fine here, |
| 45 |
(does it work for anyone else out there?). |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Of all of these packages, i think gnu-smalltalk is the only one who could |
| 48 |
survive in the tree (As long as we apply ugly patches). |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
The main reason of this email is that I am trying to keep alive some of |
| 51 |
these |
| 52 |
implementations in the tree, updating smalltalkx to the new 5.6 version, |
| 53 |
_BUT_ , installing the version in binary form instead, since apparently |
| 54 |
can't be compiled |
| 55 |
with <= glibc2.2. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
The binary version works fine here (using glibc2.3.x/gcc3), anyone |
| 58 |
interested can test the ebuild |
| 59 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~araujo/stuff/ebuilds/smalltalkx-5.2.6.ebuild , |
| 60 |
and fetch the binaries from http://dev.gentoo.org/~araujo/stuff/bin/ . |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Please test it and send me feedbacks, to this list or my email if you |
| 63 |
are interested |
| 64 |
to address these issues, if not, well.. i think we'll end up removing |
| 65 |
these packages, |
| 66 |
and though ST is dying, it is the only TRUE OO language ;-) |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Cheers, |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives