Hula -- mixed mono package

[PFJ]

Hi,

> > boo, nant and gtksourceview-sharp are all pretty trivial
> > 
> nant doesn't seem to need the %{_libdir} hack.  nant is an application.
> The package up for review puts its files into %{_datadir} and runs fine
> from there.

I know - I've built boo and a few other apps with it.

> I've built boo without the _libdir hack.  What package should I compile
> with it that will show if everything works or not?

monodevelop - it won't work without the libdir hack

> Haven't looked at gtk-sourceview-sharp yet but the same question would
> apply to it as boo:  Once I build it, what do I need to build to test
> it?

monodevelop.

gtk is currently broken, but monodevelop will compile and start up.

> > > Since mono applications
> > > in Core reside in %{_libdir} and Core's mono libraries only
> > > put .dll, .exe, and GAC files in %{_prefix}/lib/ (pkgconfig and
> > > ELF .so's go into %{_libdir}) I think there's something not quite right
> > > about the wiki's statement of problem and the "%define _libdir
> > > %{_prefix}/lib" solution.
> > 
> > Not with you there - what do you mean?
> > 
> Based upon where Core packages are located, I don't think the advice to
> redefine %{_libdir} is good.  I want to figure out what's changed when
> %{_libdir} is redefined and fix those specific problems.

Fair enough. From the packages I've built using mono (which are quite a
few), if something depends on a package (such as monodevelop requiring
boo, ikvm, monodoc and gtksourceview-sharp), you really need the libdir
hack. If it's a standalone (such as nant), it's not.

However, for simplicity, having the hack there just means everything
will always build.

TTFN

Paul
-- 
"Logic, my dear Zoe, is merely the ability to be wrong with authority" -
Dr Who