Creation of a proper Mono PPA
atrauzzi at gmail.com
Mon Jun 16 04:09:07 UTC 2014
I think you're driving things a bit off topic at this point. We could
debate the subjectivity of number of users at this point but it too is
"orthogonal"...to my point: There are a considerable and observable number
of users that want current releases of Mono available, myself included.
Xamarin has made it pretty clear where they want the responsibility to lie.
So we either all turn up on their doorstep, or start thinking about how to
fix the list of things I originally outlined.
I get that *you* might be okay with what is in place currently. But this
discussion was made to outline the desire too see better - not talk about
how things are.
(I'm not sure what would make it worthwhile to drive this discussion off
the tracks by coming on and splitting hairs.)
Either way, I'm not the right person to improve or fix Mono on Ubuntu so
you don't need to continue trying to suggest it. I'm sure Ubuntu wouldn't
ask my wife to write Unity but she uses it none the less. Consider me
similarly limited, albeit at a slightly more technical level.
What I do know however is that this is the list I was directed to and some
others here seem to agree. I know what FOSS is and if I needed a remedial
in it, I would have asked.
On 15 Jun 2014 22:38, "Christopher James Halse Rogers" <
chris at cooperteam.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Alexander Trauzzi <atrauzzi at gmail.com>
>> I doubt people are interested in badgerports given many of the issues I
>> listed out originally - but most of all because it is currently at 3.2.8
>> and http://www.mono-project.org is showing 3.4.0. I was aware of it
>> prior, it's just not going to be what anyone wants and can't be
>> realistically offered as a solution.
> It has thousands of current users; it's clearly something that *somebody*
> wants :).
> It might not be exactly what you want, but this is a resource-constraint
> issue¹. Is it perhaps enough like what you want that it's not worth
> investing additional resources? Does it have a simple flaw that could be
> fixed with a little effort to make it enough like what you want?
> There's always going to be a lag between an upstream release and packages
> of it, unless you *don't do* any integration work. And if you want that,
> then working out why Xamarin CI's Debian autobuilder is no longer doing
> builds is almost certainly the easiest path to what you want.
> I'm not really sure what you mean about the builder issues, probably
>> outside my realm of expertise/familiarity there.
>> As for developers wanting to do development on current releases?
>> Absolutely. Would it have to be a random snapshot? I don't think so,
>> just something >= what the mono web site indicates so that when someone
>> wants to jump in, they aren't discouraged with a second-class experience.
> Presumably you mean ‘= what the mono web site says’; we obviously can't
> provide packages of releases that don't yet exist :)
>> I think people would be more comfortable deploying for a runtime where
>> someone is making an effort to make good quality, current releases for it
>> rather than something that shoehorns itself into /opt and doesn't integrate
>> nicely with the system.
> Installing into /opt and not integrating with the system are orthogonal.
> As I've mentioned, we go to quite some lengths to make it easy to parallel
> install Mono runtimes and have them nicely integrated.
> IIRC the autobuilds in Mono CI are exactly that; integrated with the
> system, installed into /opt.
>> The node, mongodb, wine and several other very popular FOSS PPAs are
>> great examples that don't leave people going "Well this isn't what I
>> needed!". What's available in those PPAs doesn't make the users second
>> class citizens of the community.
> The common thread here is, of course, that all of those PPAs are
> maintained entirely *by* the community; likewise, such a Mono PPA would be.
> Sadly, these things rarely happen because someone goes “you know, it'd be
> cool if there was $THING” unless they subsequently go “so I'll start making
> ¹: As with everything open-source. It's entirely possible for you to do
> this; if you had the resources to do it, it would be done already :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss