[Fedora-packaging] Mono Packaging (was Re: On the subject of sponsors...)

Toshio Kuratomi toshio at tiki-lounge.com
Thu Jun 8 15:27:18 UTC 2006

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 10:18 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> I'm still looking for mono packaging standards to be sorted out; for 
> instance, the %{_libdir} hack is still under debate, as is a move to put 
>   mono stuff under %{_datadir}.

Are we collecting the open questions about packaging mono apps anywhere?
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono seems to be an
instruction manual for packaging mono rather than a lit of questions we
need to solve (and lists the _libdir hack as a solution a bit
prematurely, IMHO)

Another open question would be how this affects us:

It's advocating using .dlls with unstable APIs the same way we normally
use static libraries (including a local copy with the application).  It
has all the usual features of a static library scheme but fails to
mention any security issues.  Should packages entering Fedora be checked
to make sure they *do not* follow this or are mono .dlls immune to the
security concerns with normal static libraries?

PS: This is moving into general packaging territory so I'm cross-posting
it to fedora-packaging.  Replies to fedora-packaging please.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060608/581ea9fa/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list