[mono-packagers] libmono-2.0.a missing from all CentOS packages?

Eugene Kobrinsky cue at integrate.com
Sat Feb 20 03:59:00 UTC 2016

I had the same thought because I read about the guidelines and static libraries somewhere earlier. The comment in the source code though ("remove libraries that a really only for us") makes me thing that it was more of an oversight. 

-----Original Message-----
From: mono-packagers-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-packagers-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Fritz Elfert
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:03 PM
To: mono-packagers-list at lists.ximian.com
Subject: Re: [mono-packagers] libmono-2.0.a missing from all CentOS packages?

Most likely because CentOS and Fedora packaging guidelines strongly discourage static libs.

In this case however that decision is dead wrong, because mkbundle
*requires* the static libs. Therefore, in *my* packages (see https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:ods/mono-core sorry, still a bit older), I hav added a sub-package called libmono-2_0-static which contains these). This complies to these guidelines.

Oh and BTW:
My packages also provide *bot* 32bit and 64bit libs for true multilib system.

Probably somebody can adapt the upstream spec files...


On 19.02.2016 21:54, Eugene Kobrinsky wrote:
> I asked this on the mono-list without much success but maybe packagers list might be more appropriate:
> The static mono library (libmono-2.0.a) doesn't appear in any package on the official mono CentOS (download.mono-project.com/repo/centos). This prevents us from using "mkbundle -static ..." in our CentOS environments. 
> Timotheus from the mono-list@ pointed out that the source for the rpm file specifically removes the static libraries: 
> --- source of the rpm file: 
> https://github.com/mono/linux-packaging-mono/blob/centos/mono-core.spe
> c#L189 # remove .a files for libraries that are really only for us rm 
> -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libMonoPosixHelper.a
> rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libikvm-native.a
> rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libmono-llvm.a
> rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libmono-2.0.a
> rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libmonoboehm-2.0.a
> rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libmonosgen-2.0.a
> --
> Just trying to figure out if this is a possible oversight of use cases or there is a specific reason behind it.  Why do this for CentOS/Fedora but not for Ubuntu/Debian?
> Thanks,
> Eugene
> _______________________________________________
> mono-packagers-list mailing list
> mono-packagers-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-packagers-list

More information about the mono-packagers-list mailing list