inconsistency between sources at Fedora and upstream

[Christian Krause]

Hi,

David Nielsen wrote:
>     1. I'll just fix mono-tools (devel).
> 
> This is given, the package is in conflict with the required parts of the
> packaging guidelines, a serious issue which must be fixed. 

Ok, I will adjust the Source0: URL to actually point to the correct
tarball (in this case preview of mono 2.6) and add a proper release tag
so that it is obvious that a preview version is packaged.
For the mono I'll create a bug report.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like that the mono projects uses any kind
of versioning for the pre-releases - the URL for mono-tools-2.6 preview
release looks like this:

http://mono.ximian.com/monobuild/preview/sources/mono-tools/mono-tools-2.6.tar.bz2

So I suggest we put the date where we've downloaded the preview into the
release tag.

>     2. Regarding mono in F10: F10 is already in deep maintenance mode and so
>      I believe we should _not_ update mono in F10 to 2.4 although the spec
>     files are already updated. But if there is not strong reason to do it,
>     we should do only critical bug fixes now to mono 2.2.
> 
> 
> 2.4 is long term support from upstream, there are benefits from going
> there just in terms of it being a product Novell is commited to support
> for a number of years. I would support such a push especially as it
> would make for a good base for F11 as well. F12 and beyond can target
> current Mono releases till the next LTS Mono release.

Hm, probably there was a misunderstanding here. I spoke only about F10.
I fully agree that F11 should use the most recent mono 2.4 and F12 may
use later 2.6. But for F10 which lifetime will be over in 4 months I
would really not increase the mono version right now.

I do only ask for an update in F10 to the official most recent version
of mono 2.2, so that we got the latest bug fixes for this mono release
(and we'll make some f-spot users happy).

>     But I would also suggest to update F10's mono package to the official
>     2.2 release since it would solve problems as I was looking for at the
>     beginning and most likely it will contain also some more bug fixes from
>     upstream.
> 
>     Since I'd like to get this bug fixed in F10 as fast as possible, I'd
>     like to volunteer to do it (if somebody could approve my commit
>     permissions ;-) ).

Michel, Paul:

Does the following list is also your view of Fedora's mono support:

F12: mono 2.4, and later mono 2.6 when it's ready
F11: mono 2.4
F10: mono 2.2

Would it be also OK with you if I would update F10's mono to the
official 2.2 version? In this case I would have to revert the 2.4 update
in CVS in the F-10 branch, but this should not be a problem.

Thanks!


Best regards,
Christian