[Mono-devel-list] GAC and third party libraries: post Beta planning.

[Michal Moskal]

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:10:56PM -0400, Todd Berman wrote:
> I dont see how the /probe replaces the need for /package.
> 
> You still have one of the issues that caused the need for /package in
> the first place (Different versions of the same assembly). It seems that
> it wouldn't replace it at all, but compliment it.

Oh, that's simple:

	/usr/lib/pkgconfig/gtk+-2.0.pc
	/usr/lib/pkgconfig/gtk+.pc

The same way you can have gtk-sharp and gtk-sharp-2 or whatever.

> We still have a (imo) huge issue with regards to prefixes. 

Why should you care about prefixes? You just need to know how to call
pkg-config -- and it should simply be in the PATH. Then you can simply
do:

	mcs -pkg:gtk-sharp foo.cs

and that's all.

> I think this
> can be fixed by reversing the direction of our symlinks (instead of from
> $prefix/lib/mono/package/blah.dll to the real gac'd assembly, symlink
> the other way around). This will remove the need for some kind of hacky
> MONO_GAC_PATHS or something evil like that, as regardless of what prefix
> your libraries are really on, you would have them all symlink'd to the
> proper place. Of course, then you get into typical issue of touching
> files outside of the user requested prefix, and auto* distchecking, and
> that general unix nightmare.

The symlinks are IMHO needed *only* for system assemblies, as they are
likely to be referenced using just /r: and not /pkg:. I would vote for
the pkg-config to be the only officially supported way of referencing
gtk# and co.

-- 
: Michal Moskal :: http://www.kernel.pl/~malekith :: GCS !tv h e>+++ b++
: When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson :: UL++++$ C++ E--- a?