>>> banshee-1.4.2-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) = >>> 0:0.3.0.0 >>> banshee-1.4.2-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) = >>> 0:0.3.0.0 >>> banshee-1.4.2-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins) = 0:0.3.0.0 >>> f-spot-0.5.0.3-5.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) = >>> 0:0.3.0.0 >>> f-spot-0.5.0.3-5.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) = >>> 0:0.3.0.0 >>> f-spot-0.5.0.3-5.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins) = 0:0.3.0.0 >>> gnome-do-0.8.0-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) = >>> 0:0.3.0.0 >>> gnome-do-0.8.0-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins) = 0:0.3.0.0 >>> tomboy-0.13.4-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) = >>> 0:0.3.0.0 >>> tomboy-0.13.4-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) = >>> 0:0.3.0.0 >>> tomboy-0.13.4-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins) = 0:0.3.0.0 >> >> A heads up would have been nice Paul ;) >> > This is quite severe: I just recompiled banshee, gnome-do and tomboy, > and none of them works even after recompilation (with wildly different > errors). Is the Mono 2.4 snapshot we have in Rawhide currently usable? > > (Monodevelop still works, but it's an older snapshot) > > Given that gcc 4.4 was tested using a separate dist tag before it hits > Rawhide, should we consider doing the same for the Mono stack? Would be useful I would think. I also wish the mono packages used the release tag scheme for pre release and betas like everyone else IE mono-2.4-0.5.pre2.20090502svn125709.fc11 instead of mono-2.4-5.pre2.20090502svn125709.fc11 as per the package naming guidelines here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages Peter -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
