[Mono-list] Mono Packages split.

[Todd Berman]

On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 19:05 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>    We are having a debate about the current packaging strategy: so far
> we have split everything into small chunks that have correct dependency
> information.
> 
>    Although this is useful for folks that want to get very granular
> setups, the problem is that people have to download 20+ packages to get
> a complete Mono install.
> 
>    An intermediary hack was to create a mono-all.zip file that contains
> everything and have people download that.
> 
>    My feeling is that we should go back to the simpler two way split:
> mono and mono-devel packages.
> 
>    What do people think?

As long as the dependencies stay sane, I'm all for it. However, the
minute that mono (which now includes System.Drawing) depends on gdiplus,
which depends on cairo, etc, etc is when it gets nasty. I dont think
requiring X to install mono is sane. Personally, thats the advantage to
the current situation, and having 2 huge packages that have no proper
dependency info is a huge step back.

Why isnt is possible to create a 'mono' and 'mono-devel' package that is
basically a stub that deps on what would go in those. That way you get
the best of both worlds.

--Todd