[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





------- Additional Comments From fedora adslpipe co uk  2006-02-04 04:24 EST -------
(In reply to comment #4)

> There are binaries, but it's probably because they're .NET ones instead of
> standard ELF one which are causing the false positive.

yes, I did realise this with my "because it produces PE rather than ELF
executables?" comment, Still interested to know if/how beagle/fspot go out of
their way to persuade rpmlint it's ok?

> > Ironic!
> 
> There is some external documentation, [snip] I will include them if needs be.

I meant rpmlint had missed the point about monodoc *being* doc, rather than
having doc, though if the docs did explain that this package is not runnable as
such, just providing doc contents it might be worthwhile.

> any other non-32 bit architecture, %{_libdir} is /usr/lib64. This
> breaks a lot of stuff under Mono

at least there's a reason, I'm not qualified to say if its a qood enough one

> Which version of mono have you got on the 64 bit box? I'm on 1.1.3 and it
> compiled without a hitch.

1.1.3.2 beagle/fspot have worked in the past, they broke some time after fc5t2,
mabe when the kernel went to 2.6-16-pre series? what's a very simple mono prog
to run check if all of mono is deas on my machine, or just bits of it?

I believe you compile your own mono rather than installing fedora's?

> monodoc is used inside of monodevelop and won't run outside of it.

ok, so no .desktop required

> Thanks for the feedback

If you get a chance to review my Eiciel package I'd be greatful 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179758



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]