El 12/08/10 03:24, Daniel Hughes escribió: > Ubuntu does not believe it is its responsibility to update mono > between OS releases.
If they don't do, and that means that Mono apps (included by default, such as F-Spot) have bugs or even cannot compile, they will be forced to do it. > Mono does not believe it is its responsibility to provide ubuntu > packages for new mono releases. > > Users fall into a gap between the two. And must compile from source or > use unsupported third party PPA's if and when they are available. Not users, *advanced users*. Normal users just install the CD/DVD, and never update packages except security updates, until they `order` the next set of CD/DVDs when the new Ubuntu version comes out. > This is the way it is and this discussion shows that it will not > change. Thank you all for explaining this to me. I see no reason for > any further discussion here. > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Andreia Gaita <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Daniel Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Quote >>> "so my team plays a double role there (OpenSUSE) or distributions >>> where Mono is not included by default" >>> >>> So if ubuntu did not support mono by including it by default. Then you >>> would package it. Ubuntu would get first class support from the mono >>> team. We would get new versions of mono as they are released and so >>> mono support on ubuntu would be improved. >> >> I could be wrong, but I think you don't understand how packaging works >> in linux distributions, which is why you're not "getting" the >> explanations that have been put forth already. >> >> The developer of the application provides the code, and the >> distribution packages it. Each distro has their own rules and software >> for packaging, as well as package mantainers and their own schedule >> for providing new versions of packages. If a distro chooses to not >> update a package to a more current version, it can be because of many >> things: 1) they have custom patches that need porting 2) they prefer >> not to touch system packages until the next major distro release 3) >> they have long qa/approval cycles for updates 4) a million other >> reasons, as miguel explained earlier. >> >> We do the best we can supporting OSs and distros that don't have >> package maintainers (or not even a concept of that) or where we're the >> maintainers ourselves. We're not the Debian or Ubuntu maintainers. Go >> look at the homepages of pretty much any software available on Ubuntu >> and note that they don't provide packages, just tarballs. That's how >> things work in the Linux world. I think we all understand your >> frustration about this, but insisting on it when everyone has >> explained it to you repeatedly is not going to make it happen any >> differently. Ubuntu is extremely well supported, it's dead easy to >> compile your own Mono if you want, you can use Jo's PPA if you prefer, >> there's basically a bunch of different ways to update Mono on your >> system with little effort. >> >> You might not like how the Linux packaging process works, but that's >> how it is, and discussing the pros and cons of particular philosophy >> is a topic for other mailing lists, I think. >> >> andreia gaita >> _______________________________________________ >> Mono-list maillist - [email protected] >> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list >> > _______________________________________________ > Mono-list maillist - [email protected] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list > _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
