[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]pnet/mono packaging conflicts

[Marcus]

Doesn't a similar situation exist with the various Java installations 
available. It is not uncommon to have several implementations or versions of 
Java installed (i.e. IBM 1.3.1, Sun 1.4.x, etc) for compatability testing and 
so forth. Not being a Java developer, I don't know how this is handled in 
practice, perhaps an explanation of Java's issue would be helpful.

Another possibility is to handle Pnet and Mono the way that Rotor is handled 
on Linux/BSD. Rotor is localized into its own directory root, similar to the 
way Qt is installed. Some initial startup scripts are used to add the needed 
binary paths and library paths. Executables (.exe) and libraries (.dll) that 
are not part of Rotor itself can still be installed in the "normal" Unixy 
places like /usr/local/lib, since they should not depend on the particular 
CLR in use.




On Tuesday 21 October 2003 2:49 am, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On 21-Oct-2003, Rhys Weatherley <rweather@zip.com.au> wrote:
> > Recently, some packaging conflicts between Portable.NET and Mono have
> > come to light, revolving around binaries in both packages with the
> > same names (especially ilasm).  This is causing problems for users
> > of all major GNU/Linux distributions.
> >
> > Portable.NET has been using those names since early 2001, well before the
> > Mono project was first publicly announced
>
> I hate to be the one to break it to you, Rhys, but I think Microsoft was
> using the name "ilasm" as a command name privately since _at least_ 1999,
> and publically since the July 2000 PDC conference.