[Mono-dev] Moving *.Design to package "mono-design"

Andreas Nahr ClassDevelopment at A-SoftTech.com
Sun Aug 9 05:39:45 EDT 2009

Just some info (for the "additional info"):
System.Windows.Forms (and especially the PropertyGrid control) extremely
depend on the *Design assemblies. ANY application that uses these will need
the *Design assemblies at runtime.

Also imho the name mono-designtime isn't optimal because it somehow suggests
they are not needed at runtime which is not true.


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com
[mailto:mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com] Im Auftrag von Sandy
Gesendet: Samstag, 8. August 2009 01:04
An: Andrew Jorgensen
Cc: mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
Betreff: Re: [Mono-dev] Moving *.Design to package "mono-design"

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Jorgensen<ajorgensen at novell.com>
> We have a proposal to move System.Design.dll, System.Drawing.Design.dll,
and System.Web.Extensions.Design.dll to a separate package to break the
dependency between mono-web and mono-winforms.
> Tomboy has started to use System.Web so if we leave the packages as is it
will suddenly depend on mono-winforms (where System.Design currently lives,
which is needed by System.Web.Extensions.Design, currently in mono-web,
which Tomboy doesn't need).
> ivanz suggests the new package be called mono-designtime.
> Please chime in if you have relevant information or a good reason to

I favor this split.  :-)

Some additional info:
* mono-winforms is a multi-megabyte package, and having a dependency
on it becomes an issue for Tomboy and other apps that want to be on
the openSUSE GNOME Live CD or other space-constrained environments
* I cannot think of any situations where a user application would
actually need *Design.dll
* It "looks bad" to have Mono apps on Linux depend on a
"controversial" package like mono-winforms

Hope this helps,
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com

More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list