[Mono-dev] To split or not to split Mono?

Duncan Mak duncan at novell.com
Thu Nov 3 21:46:08 EST 2005


On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:10 -0500, Jonathan Pryor wrote:
> Regardless, a split that removes circular dependencies should be used
> (hence the implied proposal below to merge mono & mcs into mono-core).
> The breakup I'd suggest is this:

Looking at the proposed list, the names mentioned remind me of the names
we came up for the RPM packages. I haven't given it much thought, but
perhaps we should aim to mirror (and if it's not possible, unite) the
names of the post-split mono tarballs with the names of the RPM

I think it will be royally confusing for both old-timers and newcomers
if the names of the tarballs overlap and do not match up with the names
of the packages.

The current definition of the RPM packages can be viewed here:

Actually, come to think of it, there's another hurdle for packaging when
it comes to a split-up: RPM is not particularly good at generating
packages from multiple tarballs. Having a 1-to-1 mapping of tarball <->
package would let up split up the mono-1.1/ximian-build.conf file into
smaller files.


More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list