[Mono-list] Mono source tarballs versus CVS module names

Marcus mathpup@mylinuxisp.com
Sun, 15 Jun 2003 20:13:40 -0500

Building Mono from CVS can be tricky the first few times. One particular point 
of confusion is that the Mono source tarballs, such as mono-0.24.tar.gz, are 
not equivalent to the CVS module. In particular, the source tarball can be 
used to bootstrap (i.e. one can start with the source tarball and get a 
working Mono setup) because it contains prebuilt libs and executables for the 
system, whereas one cannot start with only a "mono" CVS module and get a 
working system.

Furthermore, it is not readily apparent that the mcs source tarballs are *not* 
required to achieve a working Mono system. Many people incorrectly think that 
mono-0.XX.tar.gz and mcs-0.XX.tar.gz are both required for the initial setup.

Changing the name from mono-0.XX.tar.gz to mono-bootstrap-0.XX.tar.gz seems 
like a good solution to clarify the situation. Is there a particular reason 
not to change to this more accurate naming convention?