On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:38:00PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Now that wine is 1.0, I think it really deserves the same pariah > > status that Mono should get. It's an API controlled by a single > > corporation that is not 100% documented, complex, and been > > reimplemented from the inside out. Where do we draw the line between > > Mono compiling EXEs and DLLs that work under .Net on Windows and a > > cross compiler compiling EXEs and DLLs that work on windows without > > .Net? If you really want to make this argument, why don't we draw the > > line at Mono?. > > Did you miss what happened in the runup to F9? We actually pulled > pre-compiled stuff out of some mono packages...and it really pissed a > few people off...but we did it. But that was stuff where there either wasn't source or there was no clear chain from the source to the binary. Please be clear that the MinGW cross-compiler is 100% free software built from source. If it turns out that any parts aren't, then they will be removed. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/ Fedora now supports 59 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
