[Mono-list] Can't build releases 1.1.5-1.1.7

[Kirill]

Pieter Baele wrote:

>Op ma, 09-05-2005 te 09:44 +0300, schreef Kirill:
>
>  
>
>>Yes, but on the Downloads page it doesn't say that the prebuilt packages
>>are for 1.1.7. In fact, you get the feeling that they must be for 1.0.6,
>>because that's the stable version! So you don't even bother looking
>>there. Instead you straightly follow the link to the 1.1.7 Release
>>Notes, which is on top of the Downloads page, to only find there a
>>source tarball and no indication of prebuilt 1.1.7 packages availability.
>>
>>    
>>
>1.1.6 is good enough for most apps....
>Why must everything in our society be so 'instant'? Lets give them some
>time to prepare packages for al these different distributions....
>
>You said it took 12 hours to install mono? I am a patient person, but 12
>hours!!!
>  
>
Yes, 12 hours for Mono + MonoDevelop. And I'm not a linux newbie. My
point is that it's a direct result of misleading documentation and poor
release organization of Mono and MonoDevelop and their subprojects.

>"It would have taken me as little as 2 to 3 hours..."
>  
>
That was an irony.

>ergghh: that's also very long. An install of mono is maybe 10 minutes
>work (ok that's maybe because gentoo has Peter Johanson who's a very
>good maintainer for this) but It should not take longer then 1 hour on
>other distributions.
>
>A typical monodevelop build from svn is max. 5 minutes. The first time I
>spent nearly an hour to find out everything about the svn repo and
>things like .autogen.sh + options (boo, mono-debugger, java)
>
>  
>
>>Yes, but not with svn+ssh scheme. In other words, this won't work
>>without password (taken directly from the readme):
>>        svn co svn+ssh://USER@mono-cvs.ximian.com/source/trunk/mono
>>    
>>
>
>I do really suggest a tutorial about searching the web. (some persons
>would say "STFW" but I remain patient...)
>
>1 www.google.com
>2 "mono anonymous svn"
>3 http://svn.myrealbox.com/ 
>or http://mono-project.com/AnonSVN ('official'?)
>
>Is this difficult????
>  
>
No, it's easy for someone, who knows that he should probably replace
"svn+ssh://" with "svn://". And I do know that. That's why I said that I
don't want to be nitpicky. But still, the readme is incorrect and
"svn+ssh://" scheme doesn't work for anonymous access. I don't know, how
to explain it in simpler words.