[Mono-devel-list] GAC and third party libraries: post Beta planning.
gert.driesen at pandora.be
Wed May 12 03:59:44 EDT 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian MacLean" <ianm at ActiveState.com>
To: "Gert Driesen" <gert.driesen at pandora.be>
Cc: "Todd Berman" <tberman at sevenl.net>; "Miguel de Icaza"
<miguel at ximian.com>; "Michal Moskal" <malekith at pld-linux.org>; "Mike
Kestner" <mkestner at ximian.com>; <martinf at mfconsulting.com>;
<mono-devel-list at ximian.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Mono-devel-list] GAC and third party libraries: post Beta
> Gert Driesen wrote:
> >Adding support for specifying packages to reference to NAnt will really
> >not be a problem, but it would reduce portability of the build files to
> >zero, and that's what I am concerned with ...
> not necessarily. It would be easy enough to resolve -pkg flags to the
> required -r: value in the nant code itself if the compiler being
> targetted is not mcs.exe. So for a nant build fragment that looks like :
> <csc target="library" >
> <includes name="foo.dll/>
> <includes name="gtk-sharp-1.0" />
> we would spit out the following commandlines:
> for mcs:
> mcs ... /r:foo.dll -pkg gtk-sharp
> for csc:
> csc /r:foo.dll -r:fullpath/gtk-sharp.dll ie nant will do the pkg-config
> lookup to get the file reference.
Sure, I wasn't saying we can't support these package references for third
party libraries, but we can't do this for system libraries without loosing
portability of build files ...
> I'm pretty sure MonoDevelop is making use of many gnome/linux specific
> features to make it a better dev tool for that platform and I think
> thats a good thing. Portability has never been a design goal as far as
> I'm aware - except with keeping in sync with some of the sharpdevelop
> libraries -Todd, correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm sorry if my remarks come across a bit harsh, but that was definitely not
my intention (I clearly indicated that I wasn't criticising) ...
I just think it would've been great to also support MonoDevelop on Windows,
as it would showcase the capabilities of Mono to create true cross-platform
> >Shouldn't Novell/Ximian be showcasing mono's ability to run applications
> >on all platforms, and frameworks ?
> >This is no criticism, I just think that would be sending out a better
> >message (to potential Windows developers) ...
> Gert - don't take this the wrong way but your tone on this stuff has
> been just a tad confrontational. Sure there are issues coming up but
> thats only natural with a system of this complexity. Compatibility with
> the ms tools is a worthy goal and maybe its the case that callin
> pkg-config inline could be a feasible alternative to adding mcs specific
> compiler flags - however a well reasoned explanation of why thats the
> case is always going to get a better response than "doesn't ximian care
> about compatibility ?" style rants.
Again, sorry if that's the message I've been sending out ... It wasn't my
intention to rant about this ...
I am concerned about compatibility yes, but I guess in this case its better
to just lay back, and have you guys sort it out....
I'm pretty sure you'll come up with something that'll benefit all of us.
More information about the Mono-devel-list