[Mono-list] Mono 2.6 for Ubuntu
alan.mcgovern at gmail.com
Thu Jan 14 05:29:14 EST 2010
If the ubuntu devs are happy with installing one giant tarball as supplied
my Novell, then it's amazingly simple to supply them with new packages every
time Novell releases a new version of Mono.
However, they are not happy. They have their own strict packaging guidelines
and do a lot of extra work splitting the standard install into dozens of
small individual packages. This is one of the reasons why Ubuntu/Debian lags
It's not up to Novell, or any project, to create packages for every distro
under the sun (whether it be the most popular distro or least popular
distro) when each distro has its own specific packaging policies which
essentially means one unique package will have to be created using different
rules for every distro. If you wish to employ someone to do that, feel free.
Your examples with Chrome and gnome do aren't quite the same as mono though.
Mono is a core framework. Changing that will affect multiple applications
and can (potentially) cause things to stop working in strange and unusual
ways if an application relies on a bug which was fixed. If you install a
broken Chrome, all that's broken is Chrome. You don't end up with a dozen
broken apps on your system.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:58 AM, daniel <trampster at gmail.com> wrote:
> The ubuntu devs package and deploy for their release which happens every
> 6 months. it is insane to say its up to them to package version released
> between OS versions.
> Ubuntu comes with a packaged version on gnome do, which is fine, however
> I choose to use a more recent version of gnome do so I use a PPA which
> is supplied by the developers (not the ubuntu devs)
> The fact that ubuntu/devian developers package mono for you for its OS
> releases is a bonus, did Microsoft package up mono and include it in
> its Windows 7? NO! did Apple package up mono and include it in snow
> leopard? no. So ubuntu is helping you guys out hugely but do you thank
> them? no, you just expect more of them.
> I also use Chrome in ubuntu. Its not in the repros at all, when I wanted
> to install chrome did google say... O sorry its up to ubuntu/debian to
> package chrome for you, its not our fault if they don't. No, they
> packaged it themselves and even provided different channels so I can
> decide exactly how cutting edge I want to be.
> So you have to worry about a newer version breaking existing
> applications, how is this different from on any other operating system?
> It's not up to the ubuntu devs to package new versions of mono for exist
> OS releases, its up to the mono project to do this and provide it as a PPA.
> The question you need to ask is, how important is the largest desktop
> linux distribution to the mono project.
> At my work we started to port a .net application to mono, however it
> need to run on ubuntu (8.04) do you know what version of mono is in
> 8.04 its 1.2.6, everything for our app was supported in mono 2.4 but
> mono 1.2.6? not even close. So we abandoned our efforts, I'm sure their
> are lots of other people out there with similar stories. Those of us who
> use ubuntu feel a little bit like second class citizens.
> B.R. wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Bálint Kardos <kardosbalint at gmail.com
> > <mailto:kardosbalint at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > Fact 1: the provider decides on the virtualized platforms, not me.
> > They have Fedora, Ubuntu or Debian systems ready.
> > Fact 2: I've used Debian and Fedora for a decade, so I'm more
> > familiar with Ubuntu as with SuSe.
> > Fact 3: I've started working on merging all my sites/servers back
> > to Windows 2008.
> > It is a sad story, but the lack of real features on mono (Web
> > Services still has bugs for years, the LINQ implementation is a
> > horror etc.) makes it more and more hard to use it as a real
> > Production (not a toy playground) platform.
> > üdvözlettel
> > with regards
> > Kardos Bálint
> > _______________________________________
> > http://skaelede.hu 10 (0xA) év a magyar weben
> > If there are web services bugs, file bugs--if nobody knows about them,
> > they can't get fixed. Also, clarify what you mean by LINQ? LINQ to
> > Objects is pretty simple and there's only so many ways to implement
> > that, so I'm not sure how you can lay claim to that being a horror.
> > LINQ to SQL is a different story, and a huge effort that is only now
> > beginning to be integrated into Mono properly. You could also file
> > bugs for those--once again, if nobody knows about them, they can't get
> > fixed.
> > --B.R.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mono-list maillist - Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> Mono-list maillist - Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mono-list