"Andrés G. Aragoneses"
knocte at gmail.com
Thu Aug 12 13:33:30 EDT 2010
El 12/08/10 03:24, Daniel Hughes escribió:
> Ubuntu does not believe it is its responsibility to update mono
> between OS releases.
If they don't do, and that means that Mono apps (included by default,
such as F-Spot) have bugs or even cannot compile, they will be forced to
> Mono does not believe it is its responsibility to provide ubuntu
> packages for new mono releases.
> Users fall into a gap between the two. And must compile from source or
> use unsupported third party PPA's if and when they are available.
Not users, *advanced users*. Normal users just install the CD/DVD, and
never update packages except security updates, until they `order` the
next set of CD/DVDs when the new Ubuntu version comes out.
> This is the way it is and this discussion shows that it will not
> change. Thank you all for explaining this to me. I see no reason for
> any further discussion here.
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Andreia Gaita <shana.ufie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Daniel Hughes <trampster at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "so my team plays a double role there (OpenSUSE) or distributions
>>> where Mono is not included by default"
>>> So if ubuntu did not support mono by including it by default. Then you
>>> would package it. Ubuntu would get first class support from the mono
>>> team. We would get new versions of mono as they are released and so
>>> mono support on ubuntu would be improved.
>> I could be wrong, but I think you don't understand how packaging works
>> in linux distributions, which is why you're not "getting" the
>> explanations that have been put forth already.
>> The developer of the application provides the code, and the
>> distribution packages it. Each distro has their own rules and software
>> for packaging, as well as package mantainers and their own schedule
>> for providing new versions of packages. If a distro chooses to not
>> update a package to a more current version, it can be because of many
>> things: 1) they have custom patches that need porting 2) they prefer
>> not to touch system packages until the next major distro release 3)
>> they have long qa/approval cycles for updates 4) a million other
>> reasons, as miguel explained earlier.
>> We do the best we can supporting OSs and distros that don't have
>> package maintainers (or not even a concept of that) or where we're the
>> maintainers ourselves. We're not the Debian or Ubuntu maintainers. Go
>> look at the homepages of pretty much any software available on Ubuntu
>> and note that they don't provide packages, just tarballs. That's how
>> things work in the Linux world. I think we all understand your
>> frustration about this, but insisting on it when everyone has
>> explained it to you repeatedly is not going to make it happen any
>> differently. Ubuntu is extremely well supported, it's dead easy to
>> compile your own Mono if you want, you can use Jo's PPA if you prefer,
>> there's basically a bunch of different ways to update Mono on your
>> system with little effort.
>> You might not like how the Linux packaging process works, but that's
>> how it is, and discussing the pros and cons of particular philosophy
>> is a topic for other mailing lists, I think.
>> andreia gaita
>> Mono-list maillist - Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
> Mono-list maillist - Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
More information about the Mono-list