Fedora meeting Mono Half-Way

[Benjy Grogan]

On 12/15/05, dragoran <dragoran at feuerpokemon.de> wrote:
>
> Dan Williams wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 07:21 -0500, Benjy Grogan wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 12/15/05, Patrick Barnes <nman64 at n-man.com> wrote:
> >>        Benjy Grogan wrote:
> >>        > Hello:
> >>        >
> >>        > I know this topic has been mentioned over and over, and
> >>        everyone is
> >>        > irritated by it.  But why not meet the Mono project
> >>        half-way?  Why
> >>        > can't the hal-sharp and the dbus-sharp, and gtk-sharp
> >>        add-ons be
> >>        > included in the fedora packages?
> >>        Patents
> >>
> >>
> >>There are patents in Mono.  But what patent is there in a mono binding
> >>do d-bus?  D-bus has no patent issues..  So a mono binding is just
> >>like a c++ binding, or a c binding.. or any binding.
> >>
> >>I'm talking about including the mono bindings in Fedoro system
> >>libraries.
> >>
> >>I can't see how there would be a patent in a mono binding for d-bus?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Because you have to have Mono first, before you can build the bindings
> >for dbus/hal/etc.  And to make the bindings useful, you must build them.
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> but what about a %with_mono flag in the spec file which lets us build it
> without using third party packages? like its done with the bytecode
> interpreter in freetype. (or the ntfs kernel module but this is
> something different)


This is kind of what I was talking about.  So Red Hat, Inc. would not enable
this flag in their build, but a Mono fan, would rebuild the rpm with that
flag enabled.

NRPMS.net have their own FC4 rpms for the necessary packages.  I'm guessing
they have their %with_mono flag in their specs.

Benjy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20051215/81b2eb42/attachment-0002.html