On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:50:17 +0100 "David Nielsen" <gnomeuser gmail com> wrote: > Because the guidelines for packaging Mono are IMHO broken, we do this > to enable AOT after the fact, I have at least one upstream > complaining loudly over this and personally I'm rather tired of > patching the libdir stuff by hand. > Would anyone oppose making that demand optional? As more and more > code is becoming pure managed it would greatly reduce the work > required to maintain these packages if we could be allowed to package > them as noarch. Less patching, closer to upstream.. all that good > stuff and I wouldn't be pulling out my hair everytime I feel like I'm > writing yet another mindless patch that will never go upstream. I would be more than happy to review amended mono packaging guidelines as part of the Fedora Packaging Committee. Discovery of mono like packages that are marked as arch specific, but don't use gcc to build, is rather difficult and/or time consuming from the script's point of view. I'm still working on a method for packages to 'opt-out' of the rebuilding, and it would be up to the maintainer to make the informed decision that the package in question does not make use of gcc at all in the build paths. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Description: PGP signature