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

Re: Will Mono enter testing before Sarge is released?



On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 01:44, Sam Morris wrote:
> Bjorn's transition script has the following to say:
>...
> The "Mono for Debian" web site hasn't been updated since July, and 
> there's not much activity on the pkg-mono-devel mailing list. Is 
> everybody away/sleeping? :)

Firstly the pkg-mono-devel mailing list would be the right place for
this post, thats why I saw this post just now by accident between the
other -devel trash, but anyhow I found it.

Another right place would be pkg-mono-group, that way ALL team member
would get your email directly within seconds.

The last upload of mono packages was on Fri, 10 Oct 2004 18:59:09 +0200
which is not too long ago, things are going more slowly now, but nobody
is sleeping. We started the mono packages with the goal to have them
ready for sarge, but that was/is not an easy task, reasons below.

The webpage gets updated (see web/ in the repository) but the export
hook is broken, that happened after some repository
crashes/breakages/alioth fuckups/whatever

> 
> The RC bug on libgdiplus[0] says that libgdiplus will be able to enter 
> Sarge after #272846 has been fixed, which happened back in October, so 
> assuming that the libgdiplus bug is all but recorded as fixed, am I 
> correct in assuming the real blocker here is the failed build of mcs on 
> s390[1]?

I made a s390 hack for the debian/rules file, so only the arch depended
stuff is build, that could give us working s390 builds and make mono
ready for sarge. Anyhow the main problem till beginning with mono is the
lack of non-x86 architecture support by upstream, we keep jumping
releases hoping it solves the runtime problems... but up to today, the
jit of s390 is not able to build mcs.... (like I sad I got a hack for
it)

I will file the missing removal request, thats a valid point.

Mirco Bauer

Debian Mono Group Member

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: