[Mono-list] Mono builds for Linux
"Andrés G. Aragoneses"
knocte at gmail.com
Fri Apr 4 08:50:52 UTC 2014
On 03/04/14 18:29, Timotheus Pokorra wrote:
> Hello Andrés,
>>> Here are the links:
>> Do your packages install somewhere below /opt ? If yes, then I will not
>> recommend them because it's not a standard prefix. AFAIU /opt is an
>> ideal prefix for parallel mono installations.
> The problem is that I don't want to get into conflict with the mono
> packages provided by the distribution. Software might depend on an
The best way to do this is name one of your core packages in the same
way as one core package of the distro (i.e.: "mono-runtime"), and make
it a version higher than the one that the distro provides (and I guess
make the other packages depend on the exact version of this core
package). That way, as far as I understand, the packages of both your
repo and the distro could not be installed in parallel.
> older version of Mono, or is certified for a specific version of Mono.
> I chose /opt because I consider my packages a parallel mono installation.
But a proper parallel mono installation in /opt/xyz will always require
a script to `source` into (like explained
> Perhaps I should clarify that my target audience are mainly
> developers, who want to develop with the latest version of
> MonoDevelop, or run their own software with the latest version of
>>> Alternatively, for just Ubuntu builds, there is the work by Eberhard:
>> WRT Ubuntu/Debian builds, I would rather recommend the PPAs and official
>> repositories of the official mono/monobased-apps packagers: directhex
>> and meebey.
> Good to know!
> Are these the correct links?
> https://launchpad.net/~directhex/+archive/monoxide and
> I guess for official packages for a distribution, things need to be
> very clean and follow many rules, and it takes more time to create a
> proper package.
> The advantage of an opt package installed in a parallel environment is
> that it just needs to work? But I might be wrong with that opinion...
> Just to make it clear, I don't mind who provides uptodate packages, it
> is just important to me that they are made available to people by
> linking from the official website to it.
> Even if it has a big "experimental" warning on it...
But if they are not maintained by "official" sources, I don't think it
should be linked from the official page.
More information about the Mono-list