rawhide report: 20090207 changes

[Peter Robinson]

>>>        banshee-1.4.2-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) =
>>> 0:0.3.0.0
>>>        banshee-1.4.2-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) =
>>> 0:0.3.0.0
>>>        banshee-1.4.2-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins) = 0:0.3.0.0
>>>        f-spot-0.5.0.3-5.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) =
>>> 0:0.3.0.0
>>>        f-spot-0.5.0.3-5.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) =
>>> 0:0.3.0.0
>>>        f-spot-0.5.0.3-5.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins) = 0:0.3.0.0
>>>        gnome-do-0.8.0-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) =
>>> 0:0.3.0.0
>>>        gnome-do-0.8.0-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins) = 0:0.3.0.0
>>>        tomboy-0.13.4-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) =
>>> 0:0.3.0.0
>>>        tomboy-0.13.4-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) =
>>> 0:0.3.0.0
>>>        tomboy-0.13.4-1.fc11.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.Addins) = 0:0.3.0.0
>>
>> A heads up would have been nice Paul ;)
>>
> This is quite severe: I just recompiled banshee, gnome-do and tomboy,
> and none of them works even after recompilation (with wildly different
> errors). Is the Mono 2.4 snapshot we have in Rawhide currently usable?
>
> (Monodevelop still works, but it's an older snapshot)
>
> Given that gcc 4.4 was tested using a separate dist tag before it hits
> Rawhide, should we consider doing the same for the Mono stack?

Would be useful I would think. I also wish the mono packages used the
release tag scheme for pre release and betas like everyone else

IE
mono-2.4-0.5.pre2.20090502svn125709.fc11
instead of
mono-2.4-5.pre2.20090502svn125709.fc11

as per the package naming guidelines here
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages

Peter