On 12/15/05, dragoran <dragoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is kind of what I was talking about. So Red Hat, Inc. would not enable this flag in their build, but a Mono fan, would rebuild the rpm with that flag enabled.
NRPMS.net have their own FC4 rpms for the necessary packages. I'm guessing they have their %with_mono flag in their specs.
Benjy
Dan Williams wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 07:21 -0500, Benjy Grogan wrote:
>
>
>>On 12/15/05, Patrick Barnes <nman64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Benjy Grogan wrote:
>> > Hello:
>> >
>> > I know this topic has been mentioned over and over, and
>> everyone is
>> > irritated by it. But why not meet the Mono project
>> half-way? Why
>> > can't the hal-sharp and the dbus-sharp, and gtk-sharp
>> add-ons be
>> > included in the fedora packages?
>> Patents
>>
>>
>>There are patents in Mono. But what patent is there in a mono binding
>>do d-bus? D-bus has no patent issues.. So a mono binding is just
>>like a c++ binding, or a c binding.. or any binding.
>>
>>I'm talking about including the mono bindings in Fedoro system
>>libraries.
>>
>>I can't see how there would be a patent in a mono binding for d-bus?
>>
>>
>
>Because you have to have Mono first, before you can build the bindings
>for dbus/hal/etc. And to make the bindings useful, you must build them.
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>
but what about a %with_mono flag in the spec file which lets us build it
without using third party packages? like its done with the bytecode
interpreter in freetype. (or the ntfs kernel module but this is
something different)
This is kind of what I was talking about. So Red Hat, Inc. would not enable this flag in their build, but a Mono fan, would rebuild the rpm with that flag enabled.
NRPMS.net have their own FC4 rpms for the necessary packages. I'm guessing they have their %with_mono flag in their specs.
Benjy
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
