[Mono-devel-list] Tarball packaging of Mono.
tberman at off.net
Mon Oct 4 02:47:23 EDT 2004
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 12:06 +0530, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> Miguel de Icaza <miguel at novell.com> writes:
> > I would like to change the packaging of Mono, so the `mono-X.XX'
> > tarball contains also the mcs source code and only distribute a minimal
> > `runtime', enough to bootstrap Mono: mcs, mscorlib, System, System.XML
> > and compile the real Mono class libraries with this.
> I think we should still distribute the whole runtime. We should not
> depend on the just-built mono tree to compile mcs/ in a distributed
> tarball. People may be cross-compiling 'mono', and we don't want to add
> an additional mcs/ build to complicate stuff.
That would be good. We could even just keep the install the same, but
toss the mcs source in there and add some makefile cruft so that in
mono-X.XX/mcs/ a make [bootstrap] && make install would install the
binaries to the proper place.
> > The reason for this is that today we distribute the binaries for all
> > of the Mono libraries, but if someone needs to apply a patch for their
> > distribution into the C# files, they have to repackage Mono with the new
> > libraries, which is rather inconvenient (for shipping a security patch
> > for example).
> > The issues are:
> > * How to distribute the source of `mcs' inside `mono'.
> Probably as a top-level subdirectory. For development, this can be
> easily achieved with CVS modules file -- so the eventual distributed
> directory tree should probably look like that too.
Please no. The mcs and mono modules are already too large. turning them
basically into one giant module would be painfully insane.
More information about the Mono-devel-list