Hi,
> > All except one package are mono based which could be the reason for a
> > lack of movement.
>
> I'm still looking for mono packaging standards to be sorted out; for
> instance, the %{_libdir} hack is still under debate, as is a move to put
> mono stuff under %{_datadir}.
Would it be possible then to go through the packages, accepting the
caveats you've put above and just check to see that they would be
allowed? All seem happy under mock (which makes a change ;-p)
I can understand the point about the libdir hack, but having tried just
about every permutation to get packages not to require it, I can say
that the hack is about the only sure fire way of ensuring packages which
build on other packages actually work. I've tried as many hacks, tricks,
patches and other such things as to give the average person a nose
bleed!
Putting the mono stuff in %{_datadir} currently is not that good an idea
- mainly as upstream there are no plans to change how things are done in
that respect. Other distros packaging mono and mono apps (SuSE
especially) have no plans currently. I know some testing has been done,
but the results were not that brilliant (as in quite a lot of packages
just failed to work!)
TTFN
Paul
--
"Logic, my dear Zoe, is merely the ability to be wrong with authority" -
Dr Who
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
