2008/2/11, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx>:
Because the guidelines for packaging Mono are IMHO broken, we do this to enable AOT after the fact, I have at least one upstream complaining loudly over this and personally I'm rather tired of patching the libdir stuff by hand.
Would anyone oppose making that demand optional? As more and more code is becoming pure managed it would greatly reduce the work required to maintain these packages if we could be allowed to package them as noarch. Less patching, closer to upstream.. all that good stuff and I wouldn't be pulling out my hair everytime I feel like I'm writing yet another mindless patch that will never go upstream.
- David
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:42 +0100, David Nielsen wrote:
> 2008/2/10, Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx>:
> The script included also some applications written in C# and
> build with
> Mono, are they really required to be rebuild?
>
> Pure managed code such as ndesk-dbus should not need a rebuild, thus I
> was also surprised to find them on the list.
If it's pure managed code then why is it in an arch-specific package?
Because the guidelines for packaging Mono are IMHO broken, we do this to enable AOT after the fact, I have at least one upstream complaining loudly over this and personally I'm rather tired of patching the libdir stuff by hand.
Would anyone oppose making that demand optional? As more and more code is becoming pure managed it would greatly reduce the work required to maintain these packages if we could be allowed to package them as noarch. Less patching, closer to upstream.. all that good stuff and I wouldn't be pulling out my hair everytime I feel like I'm writing yet another mindless patch that will never go upstream.
- David
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
