mkestner at gmail.com
Sat Dec 13 12:23:38 EST 2008
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 15:23 +0000, Jonathan Pryor wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 22:35 -0600, Mike Kestner wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 08:56 -0700, Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> > > I don't know how best to solve this issue but it needs to be solved.
> > > As more mono-based packages are added to linux distributions the
> > > problem will grow. Please share your well-reasoned ideas and / or
> > > proposed patches.
> > We seem to have 3 classes of DLLs now: gac, addin, and private.
> I'm not entirely sure that we want to distinguish between addins and
> private. Somewhat because it's additional code to write/test, but
> mostly because I can't see this covering the log4net case, in which a
> plugin/addin/etc. wants to make use of the application's copy of e.g.
> log4net.dll (as presumably log4net won't be an addin any time soon).
The advantage to doing so is not cluttering up the provides output with
an entry for every non-gac assembly in an rpm when the majority of them
are not realistically consumable at runtime.
AFAICT, it solves the log4net problem as described because only the
log4net rpm would advertise a provides for mono(log4net). It appears to
be a gac installed assembly by that rpm. The mojoportal rpm would not
advertise a provides, because it apparently installs the assembly to a
private dir. mojoportal would not have a requires for it since it
installs a copy itself. smuxi on the other hand would have a requires
since it does not install log4net.dll, but instead uses the gac'd copy
Mike Kestner <mkestner at gmail.com>
More information about the Mono-devel-list