Re: Mono heads up
by Christian Krause
Hi Paul, Hi All,
Paul wrote:
> As of next week, I'll be starting the weekly builds of mono from svn and
> putting them into rawhide. It is my intention to push 2.4.2.2 into F11
> in about a months time (it should hit rawhide tomorrow).
One question regarding F10: What's your current plan for F10? Do you
plan to update F10 to mono 2.4.x, too?
The most recent stable version in F10 is 2.0.1, but in CVS mono got
already updated to 2.4-RC2...
Best regards,
Christian
14 years, 10 months
RFC: change to /usr/lib/rpm/mono-find-provides
by Christian Krause
Hi,
First let me introduce me shortly: My Name is Christian and I've started
some months ago to be a Fedora Package maintainer. Especially I'm
interested in some of the mono packages, so that's why I'm
co-maintaining mono-tools, monodevelop and now I'm also the maintainer
of f-spot. I'd like to provide good packages for the users and I'll try
my best to be responsive to any bug reports.
I've just started to walk through the f-spot bugs and I've found one
which reveals a more generic problem:
Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484996 claims, that the
f-spot package contains Provides for generic mono packages which are
bundled additionally with f-spot. This may or may not be reasonable, but
the real problem is, that the f-spot packages claims to provide e.g.
rpm -q --provides f-spot
[...]
mono(Mono.Addins) = 0.3.0.0
mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) = 0.3.0.0
mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) = 0.3.0.0
[...]
even though the assemblies are only locally to f-spot (and don't appear
in gac):
/usr/lib/f-spot/Mono.Addins.Gui.dll
/usr/lib/f-spot/Mono.Addins.Setup.dll
/usr/lib/f-spot/Mono.Addins.dll
/usr/lib/f-spot/Mono.Addins.dll.config
.
The problem is caused by the script /usr/lib/rpm/mono-find-provides
which is used by rpmbuild to extract the provides from the installed
files of the package.
All *.exe and *.dll files (which are _not_ in a documentation directory)
are scanned :
[...]
filelist=($(grep -Ev '/usr/doc/|/usr/share/doc/'))
monolist=($(printf "%s\n" "${filelist[@]}" | egrep "\\.(exe|dll)\$"))
[...]
But I'm quite sure that this is wrong. The reason for this script is to
create the "mono(LIBRARY) = VERSION" provides. But a package should only
claim to provide a library, if it's really usable by other mono
libraries / programs. In general this should be only the libraries
located in %{_libdir}/mono (which are most likely also added to the gac).
That's why I'd like to suggest the following patch:
--- /usr/lib/rpm/mono-find-provides 2009-05-18 13:26:14.000000000 +0200
+++ mono-find-provides 2009-07-17 11:47:02.000000000 +0200
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
# Args: builddir buildroot libdir
IFS=$'\n'
-filelist=($(grep -Ev '/usr/doc/|/usr/share/doc/'))
+filelist=($(grep -E '/usr/(lib|lib64)/mono/'))
monolist=($(printf "%s\n" "${filelist[@]}" | egrep "\\.(exe|dll)\$"))
# If monodis is in the package being installed, use that one
This would make sure that only "usable" assemblies are claimed to be
provided by a package and problems like that the rpm database still
thinks that Mono.Addins are there just because f-spot is installed would
be gone.
What's your opinion about this? Would it make sense to request this
change in the rpm-build package first for rawhide and then later also
for F11 and F10? Or should I better use my own version in the f-spot
package for testing?
Any suggestions and comments are highly appreciated!
Best regards,
Christian
14 years, 10 months
Ubuntu classroom session on Mono packaging
by David Nielsen
Just a little heads up, in about an hour (20.00 UTC), pkg-mono' very own Jo
Shields (directhex) will be giving a session on packaging Mono. As Jo is a
debian/Ubuntu guy it will be for the dpkg platform but there might be tips
and tricks that also apply to Fedora.
So for those who are interested, irc.freenode.net / #ubuntu-classroom.
I will be there and will capture a log.
- David
14 years, 10 months
Microsoft clarifies patent licensing for ECMA 334 and 335
by David Nielsen
>From our good buddy Miguel over the Novell way:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jul-06.html
Finally we can put an end to all this retarded Boycott Novell anti-mono FUD,
however to comply properly we on the Fedora side may need to split out the
WinForms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, then ship those in rpmfusion instead as they
are not covered by ECMA and thus not by the the community promise.
Good news, and thank you to Novell and Microsoft for working this out,
erasing doubt and showing good faith. I am very happy today.
- David
14 years, 11 months
