[Mono-devel-list] Re: Potential GAC implementation ideas.

[Joe Shaw]

On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 17:27, Todd Berman wrote:
> By force, I meant the gacutil force install flag :)

Ah, ok.  "Force" always seems like a bad idea to me.  "Why didn't it
just go in the first place?" is what always comes to my mind.

> Again, my main issue with the conf.d type setup is two-fold:
> 
> 1) Cache for a cache?!?

Well, I think the difference is just that the runtime would manage the
cache instead of some tool, and it would be the packager's
responsibility to install the DLL into a sane location.  I don't really
understand the "cache for a cache" thing, but admittedly I don't know
much about the GAC.

> 2) Multiple versions of the same library (part of the reason the GAC exists)

That would be the packager's responsibility, as it is with shared
libraries on Linux today.

I'm not really strongly advocating one way or the other, but as someone
who deals with packaging issues professionally, if adding a DLL to the
GAC is error prone, doing it in packaging post-install scripts isn't the
way to do it.  Otherwise, it's probably fine.  It's a tradeoff someone
has to make... I am just here to inform. :)

Joe