[Mono-dev] Red Hat/Fedora packaging

Vladimir Giszpenc vgiszpenc at dsci.com
Tue May 12 13:07:07 EDT 2009

I never liked my idea so if there is a better way, then by all means lets go with that.

A better approach would be to remove the requirement that the .so be in the same directory as the CIL, and instead probe architecture-specific directories for the AOT'd code, e.g. ${_libdir}/mono/aot/[???]/[assembly-name].so.  (Or see Perl for additional ideas.)  This would allow AOT'd code to be kept in a separate directory structure, thus satisfying Fedora's requirements.

The problem here is that this would be a code change, and the requirements for this feature are lacking (and no one has really complained about the situation before).  So, we have ideas, but no real impetus to implement the ideas (and find out what limitations are present and need further work).

So the best way to get the packaging guidelines fixed is to remove the scenario Fedora is concerned about.  Do we have anyone interested in prototyping and implementing this? :-)

- Jon

Thank you for addressing the problem.  I consider this a must have.  Red Hat/Fedora has a large rich user community.  I am glad that the animosity is not bidirectional.  I think this will help all software developers packaging their own software.  


Digressions follow:
Hopefully, the next step will be everyone agreeing to use the rpm from rpm5.org.  Kudos to OpenSuSE on using LZMA, but when will the ftp site offer Mono and other packages LZMA-ed instead of just gzip-ed or bzip2-ed?

More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list