[Mono-devel-list] Mono dependencies
Jonathan S. Shapiro
shap at eros-os.org
Sat Apr 5 20:30:32 EST 2003
On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 17:00, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
Thanks. I will double check, if only for accuracy, and re-send to
I am in mid-deadline, and my memory is probably confusing gnome3 for
something else. I distinctly recall being asked to update some
gnome-related libraries to a version not available on standard
distributions. Gnome-db was not optional for the RPM install of GTk#. I
will take this up on the gtk-sharp list, and thank you.
> Neither Gtk# nor Mono are 1.0 products.
Indeed. This is what prompted me to post to the mono list -- there is
still time to resolve dependency problems, if any. The key point I was
trying to make was:
When mono goes 1.0, whatever is included should be installable by users
who are running stock releases. Require the latest updates, if
necessary, but it is good to avoid creating a release that requires
users to step off of their update/maintenance path.
I intended this only as a friendly reminder. Today, the mono releases
and builds satisfy this test, but the GTk# builds do not. I'll raise it
over on the GTk# list after I check RedHat9 and can report accurately
what problems (if any) exist.
A case in point from our experiences with OpenCM: there was a release of
OpenSSL that had a really bad memory leak -- bad enough that a patch was
quickly issued. Rather than tell people they had to apply a patch that
was unavailable (in the sense that most users aren't capable of applying
source patches), we chose to work around the problem by telling OpenSSL
to use the Boehm-weiser garbage collector for allocations (no big deal,
since we were using it anyway).
Mostly, I wanted to stick this into your hopper of "things to consider
as 1.0 approaches". Speaking for myself, I think you folks may be far
enough along that if the GTk# thing is resolved you may actually be
ready to cut a 1.0.
More information about the Mono-devel-list