[MonoDevelop] Tarball and binary files

[Alan]

I took a quick look. It looks like the majority of these binaries come from
third party components and should not be shipped/packaged. They're mostly
from test frameworks like nunit or xunit.

We'll look into cleaning this up in the near future.

Alan


On 22 July 2014 19:51, Alan <alan.mcgovern at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 16 July 2014 08:54, Timotheus Pokorra <
> timotheus.pokorra at solidcharity.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> this is about the nuget package binaries that are being downloaded
>> during make, in master [1].
>> The difference is, that this happens now during make, while in
>> MonoDevelop 5.0.1 the dlls where already committed to git: [2]
>>
>> I provided a pull request [3], which downloads the asp.net dlls from
>> nuget during make dist, and would include the binaries in the tarball.
>>
>> Now Lluis and myself are wondering, if it is unusual to include binary
>> files in the tarball.
>>
>> The options are:
>> a) include binaries in the tarball (current behaviour)
>> There are currently already many binaries included in the tarball:
>> I downloaded the latest official tarball from [4], and did:
>>  tar xjf monodevelop-5.0.1-0.tar.bz2
>>  cd monodevelop-5.0.1
>>  find . -name *.dll | wc -l
>> which tells that there are 128 dlls already part of the tarball.
>> There are also 44 *.exe files.
>>
>
> This is wrong. It sounds like the tarball is including a fully built tree.
> Also, 44 exe files? We probably only have 44 assemblies in the entire tree,
> where are 44 exe's coming from?
>
> Alan
>
>>
>> b) let make download external binaries during the build of the package
>> I wonder if tarballs should be complete, and not require further
>> download from the internet, so that builds are reproducible.
>> On the openSUSE Build Service, you don't have a connection to the
>> outside world during the build of the package, so that the builds are
>> reproducible.
>>
>> c) include all sources in the tarball
>> I guess this could be done with git submodules etc, like it is done
>> already in [5], eg Newtonsoft.Json
>>
>> The question is: do people think we should provide the full sources
>> for everything in the tarball?
>> Or should we continue to allow binary files in the tarball?
>>
>> All the best,
>>   Timotheus
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://github.com/mono/monodevelop/blob/master/main/src/addins/AspNet/MonoDevelop.AspNet.csproj#L494
>> [2]:
>> https://github.com/mono/monodevelop/tree/monodevelop-5.0.1-branch/main/src/addins/AspNet/MonoDevelop.AspNet.Mvc/lib
>> [3]: https://github.com/mono/monodevelop/pull/615
>> [4]:
>> http://download.mono-project.com/sources/monodevelop/monodevelop-5.0.1-0.tar.bz2
>> [5]:
>> https://github.com/mono/monodevelop/tree/monodevelop-5.0.1-branch/main/external
>> _______________________________________________
>> Monodevelop-list mailing list
>> Monodevelop-list at lists.ximian.com
>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodevelop-list
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/monodevelop-list/attachments/20140722/add26dba/attachment.html>