[Fedora-packaging] Mono Packaging Issues

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 22:22 +0100, Paul wrote:
> Toshio wrote:

> >   - 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.
> 
The .pc file isn't found by what?  pkg-config?  A configure script?
Some other program in the build process?  We have to know what's making
the mistakes in order to fix it.

> > * 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]
> 
Do you mean gtk-sharp2?
Do you mean it installs a helper app into /usr/lib/[PKGNAME]?

I'm being very careful to differentiate between /usr/lib and %{_libdir}
because /usr/lib has multiple roles on x86_64 in Fedora Core. (Place for
32bit libraries.  Repository for arch independent python and perl
libraries.)

> >   - 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. 
> 
Java jars are bytecode.  Native code is compiled into a .so.  From
reading the links I posted earlier, it appears that .dlls and .exes can
contain both arch independent and platform specific code.  So filename
extension is not an indicator.  I haven't found any indication that
file(1) knows the difference either.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20060613/76e97afd/attachment.bin