Its kind of strange that three days after I post my little question about RPMS that slashdot discuss zero install. I didn't know it existed, but I think it shows that the idea has merits.
I think it especially pertinent to the managed world. Here is the link: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/04/03/174249.shtml?tid=106&tid=185 Philippe Lavoie Cactus Commerce eBusiness. All Business. Tel 819.778.0313 x302 * 888.CACTUS.0 * Fax 819.771.0921 www.cactuscommerce.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Andy Satori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 4:20 PM To: Philippe Lavoie Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Mono-list] About RPMS of .NET packages (using MonoDevelop as a case study) I think it make perfect sense, but since it would make it easier for 'users' and not require a techie that has not reached a significant knowledge level with AutoTools I think the bulk of the Unix world will think it's a very very bad idea. Andy On Apr 2, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Philippe Lavoie wrote: > Hi folks, > > � > > There was a small discussion which stemed from the release of > MonoDevelop. MonoDevelop already has a list of RPMS which are needed > for it to work. However, I think that having multiple RPMS is braking > the .NET spirit. > > � > > Let me explain. Then flame away. > > � > > In .NET, they try hard to break the DLL hell. There are two solutions, > the GAC and copying everything locally. The GAC is work in progress > with mono, so let's focus on the other one. > > � > > According to the .NET philosophy, every "managed" dependency of > MonoDevelop should be bundled inside its own package and that's it. > The only dependencies should be the unmanaged ones. � > > � > > Maybe have a .NET application binary package could/should/would > unbundle to a structure as follows > > � > > Application.exe > > Application��������������������� # this would be a sh script which > calls the exe > > Application.exe.libs/ > > Application.exe.libs/lib1.dll > > Application.exe.libs/lib2.dll > > Application.exe.libs/lib3.dll > > Application.exe.config > > � > > One of the things I notice with unix is that I need to do a lot of > dependency checking before I get something up and running. The above > structure would remove this (except for unmanaged dependencies) and it > could be optimize when someone compiles by source since the libraries > might already be inside the GAC. The philosophy I think is that hard > disk is cheap and DLL hell is not cheap. > > � > > Anyway, I liked it when I installed Axiom. It also contained the Tao > and other managed libraries it needed. I didn't need to fetch 3 or 4 > more packages. > > � > > In Linux, we also have dependency hell with RPMS when you start to mix > compiling from source and adding RPMS made by different vendors, etc. > We should move away from that model, gtk#.dll could have been bundled > with MonoDevelop. If people want to put all dependencies in a GAC or > something, they will need a real installer. Otherwise it's the copy > everything locally methodology. At least according to the philosophy > of .NET. Do we have an installer for mono applications under Unix yet? > > � > > What do you guys think? > > � > Philippe Lavoie > � > �� Cactus Commerce�������� eBusiness. All Business. > �Tel 819.778.0313 x302 * 888.CACTUS.0 * Fax 819.771.0921 > www.cactuscommerce.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > � _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
