Re: [Pharo-users] The myth of a small deployment image using metacello

On 8/31/16 4:34 AM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: Hi Dale. 2016-06-24 21:53 GMT+02:00 Dale Henrichs >: Does the following meet your needs? project: 'Magritte3' with: [ spec

Re: [Pharo-users] The myth of a small deployment image using metacello

Hi Dale. 2016-06-24 21:53 GMT+02:00 Dale Henrichs : > Does the following meet your needs? > > project: 'Magritte3' with: [ > spec > className: > #ConfigurationOfMagritte3; >

Re: [Pharo-users] The myth of a small deployment image using metacello

On 6/24/16 6:28 AM, Norbert Hartl wrote: I have a seaside project that will be installed in a typical fashion headless on a server somewhere on the net. The project is in its final stage so I started to care about the size of the image. Or better: The size of the image is not my main concern

Re: [Pharo-users] The myth of a small deployment image using metacello

On 24/06/16 15:28, Norbert Hartl wrote: The main problem to me is that the maintainer of the configuration defines the granularity of pieces to load forcing me to do stupid workarounds to achieve what I want. Who else should do that? Dependency management with Metacello is uni-directional. I ag

[Pharo-users] The myth of a small deployment image using metacello

I have a seaside project that will be installed in a typical fashion headless on a server somewhere on the net. The project is in its final stage so I started to care about the size of the image. Or better: The size of the image is not my main concern but the number of packages installed. The le