Building Mono from CVS can be tricky the first few times. One particular point of confusion is that the Mono source tarballs, such as mono-0.24.tar.gz, are not equivalent to the CVS module. In particular, the source tarball can be used to bootstrap (i.e. one can start with the source tarball and get a working Mono setup) because it contains prebuilt libs and executables for the system, whereas one cannot start with only a "mono" CVS module and get a working system.
Furthermore, it is not readily apparent that the mcs source tarballs are *not* required to achieve a working Mono system. Many people incorrectly think that mono-0.XX.tar.gz and mcs-0.XX.tar.gz are both required for the initial setup. Changing the name from mono-0.XX.tar.gz to mono-bootstrap-0.XX.tar.gz seems like a good solution to clarify the situation. Is there a particular reason not to change to this more accurate naming convention? _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
