On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 10:18 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> 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}.
Are we collecting the open questions about packaging mono apps anywhere?
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono seems to be an
instruction manual for packaging mono rather than a lit of questions we
need to solve (and lists the _libdir hack as a solution a bit
prematurely, IMHO)
Another open question would be how this affects us:
http://www.mono-project.com/Assemblies_and_the_GAC#Libraries_with_Unstable_APIs
It's advocating using .dlls with unstable APIs the same way we normally
use static libraries (including a local copy with the application). It
has all the usual features of a static library scheme but fails to
mention any security issues. Should packages entering Fedora be checked
to make sure they *do not* follow this or are mono .dlls immune to the
security concerns with normal static libraries?
PS: This is moving into general packaging territory so I'm cross-posting
it to fedora-packaging. Replies to fedora-packaging please.
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
