Can someone review some spec files for me?
by Stephen Shaw
These are the spec files that we are using to build rpms for openSUSE.
I was wondering if someone won't mind looking at them since I've
never build packages for fedora. There packages require mono 2.4 so
I'm hoping to be able to provide packages for fedora 11. Some of the
specs don't have versions on them. That's because these files are
stored in our trunk and the versions get set when we branch and tag.
Thanks!
Stephen
http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/viewvc/trunk/uia2atk/build/specs/
14 years, 9 months
Need consensus on Mono 2.0 migration
by David Nielsen
Dear list,
As previously mentioned, I would love for us to start work migrating to Mono
2. This work has already been done by Ubuntu and Debian and patches are
available for nearly all packages.
The effect of this will be cutting the footprint of Mono apps by around
20-40% in most cases and as such presents a major advantages for our users.
Jo Shields wrote a nice post to the Ubuntu devel list explaining this work:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2008-November/026872.html
Debian packages along with migration patches can be found here.
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-cli-libs/packages/
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-cli-apps/packages/
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-mono/
Now I would like to get this work into F12 which means we can start doing it
now and have it finished hopefully in time for the first milestone release.
This will take a concerted effort from everyone currently maintaining a mono
based package and the first step has to be agreeing upon a plan of attack. I
would propose the following:
1. Compile a list of packages that need patching and maintainers for these
packages.
2. Every package maintainer then extracts patches for his packages from
Debian and posts to the list for review.
3. Once every package on the list has patches available we commit them to
cvs and announce a rebuild to fedora-devel-announce.
I would like to be at 2. by June 30th, any maintainers having failed to
extract a patch and get it reviewed on the list by that day should expect to
have their packages manually altered by a provenpackager (this is not an
excuse to sit back and let me do the work though). We should aim to be at 3.
on July 15th, at which point we are up to date with pkg-mono' current
progress and can interact with them for future steps. This gives us a month
and a half to complete the work and leaves ample room to shake out the bugs
before release.
We should expect fall out, it is a major improvement and it carries risks
along with it. I hope we can all pull together resources to handle bug
reports stemming from this work.
- David
14 years, 10 months
mono-2.4 and ppc64 status
by Toshio Kuratomi
Mono-2.4 has been built for ppc64 in F11 and devel. So people should be
able to start rebuilding packages to include ppc64 as well as the other
arches. There's a few wrinkles to watch out for:
1) Packages with dependencies will have to be built in dependency order.
For instance, a lot of packages depend on the gtk-sharp2 bindings and
those haven't been built yet.
2) Because of the imminent release of F11 we're in a freeze state. This
means getting dependencies into the Fedora11 buildroot will require
people to request tagging explicitly. This also means that if you
rebuild your package for F11 with ppc64 support and later you have to
get this package tagged into the release, all of the packages it depends
on will need to be tagged in as well (otherwise your ppc64 build will
have broken deps).
With these in mind, I'd recommend people start rebuilding their mono
packages on ppc64 in the devel branch. Keep track of the dependency
chain you encounter. Then perform your builds in the Fedora 11 branch
as updates after the release. I'm not a mono-sig member, though, so if
you guys decide something else makes sense, just be sure to come up with
a plan so we don't release with a bunch of broken dependencies.
-Toshio
14 years, 10 months