Yes and it will be a lot more than that. We have a better core. Then we will continue to make it smaller. It means that with a bunch of BaselineOf you should be able to create the Pharo that suits your needs. Now we will do it for people :). I think that copying the BaselineOf and removing some unless or not my focus package is something that people can afford. And if by accident something is not modular enough we always accept better modular code. So it will improve but again given a specific objectives people such hilaire should do it.
Stef On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > > > On 4 March 2018 at 20:08, Hilaire <hila...@drgeo.eu> wrote: >> >> Le 04/03/2018 à 11:13, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit : >>> >>> In our community, Pavel is the person that has the bigger experience on >>> shrinking process images. I followed his work for years and I know the >>> fragility of the process. Basically each new addition/removal was breaking >>> it and needing dependency tracking, etc. Now is the opposite: you just add >>> what you want, and you are sure the resulting image is a) healthy and b) >>> identical when running. >>> >> >> Indeed it is fragile. And given the latest image size, not sure it could >> lead to satisfactory results. > > > I understood that to mean that getting a minimal image via automated > stripping was more fragile than bootstrapping, > and with bootstrapping we are now on a better path. And Pharo is > transitioning a few tools. > Nautilus-->Calypso and Morphic-->Bloc. Obviously old and new overlap for a > time. So it should get better. > > cheers -ben >
