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