[Fedora-packaging] Mono Packaging Issues

Paul paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk
Tue Jun 13 21:22:58 UTC 2006


> Given this, my questions change to::
> * Do the Core mono packages belong in %{_libdir} (ie, /usr/lib64 on
> x86_64 and /usr/lib on 32bit systems) rather than /usr/lib?

If I've read the replies so far, yes.

>   - If so, is this a requirement before we can place Extras packages
> into the proper, %{_libdir}, directories?

The problem is that for libraries, if something needs to link to it,
the .pc file isn't usually found if you've installed to the default 64
bit directory.

> * Do all mono packages belong under %{_libdir}/mono or should there be
> more flexibility?  How much? (Allow %{_libdir}/[PKGNAME]?  Allow
> %{_datadir}/PKGNAME because upstream should know if their package is
> truly arch independent?)

should know and do know are not the same. For quite a few packages (such
as gtk-sharp), they are already in %{_libdir}/[PKGNAME]

>   - If we allow more flexibility (for instance, allowing nant to install
> to %{_datadir}) how do we check that the .dlls and .exes are truly
> platform independent?

No idea - I would imagine in the same way as you would check something
written in Java. 

> * Once again, putting everything under %{_libdir}/mono would be easiest
> for doing reviews but it may require us to do a lot of patching to get
> things into the right directories.

It depends if we patch the spec file or the configure files. The spec is
much simpler than the configure scripts.

> FWIW, Debian installs Nant into /usr/lib/mono/ so it appears they have
> decided patching upstream's install locations is the proper procedure.

I'd rather we come up with a FC specific solution than rely on two
conflicting points of view coming from the SuSE and Debian camps -
having used both, I can say that I wouldn't trust either to get things
even remotely right.



ich liebe Ashleigh, eins zwei drei 
ich liebe Ashleigh, auf meinem Knee zu hüpfen
-------------- 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/20060613/0dec08de/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list