Mono packaging status

Scott Ritchie scott at
Mon Apr 23 19:17:00 CDT 2012

On 4/23/12 1:45 AM, Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 4/20/12 11:29 PM, Scott Ritchie wrote:
>> On 4/19/12 1:54 AM, Jacek Caban wrote:
>>> Hi Vincent,
>>> On 04/19/12 00:12, Vincent Povirk wrote:
>>>> If for some reason you want to try it, the current version is at
>>>> I think I will need a new home for the binaries, because github only
>>>> gives me enough space for about 5 of them. So, uh, don't count on that
>>>> URL sticking around.
>>> The right place for this is probably SourceForge, like all our other
>>> downloads. That's a detail to be handler during the final release
>>> through.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jacek
>> Sourceforge only gives us limited space that you can get through via a
>> simple web URL. If we need Wine to automatically download this the way
>> it does Gecko, then doing a normal "release" via sourceforge might not
>> be enough (since Wine can't click through the page). This is why we
>> were using things like the budgetdedicated hosting service (which is
>> still available) in years past.
> I'm not sure what limited space you mean. We already have Wine Gecko on
> SourceForge and a redirecting script on, which is used
> for automated downloads. AFAIK this way we don't have any limitations
> and, as far as Wine packages are concerned, we don't depend on any
> specific external mirror provider.

Perhaps I am misremembering bandwidth limitations as space ones, but I 
do recall that hosting the Ubuntu packages there simply did not work 
once we had more than a few thousand users long ago.

Depending on how frequent a download mono is, we may run into the same 
issue (with a similar solution: most Ubuntu users don't ever hit the 
sourceforge gecko download because they get gecko from an automatically 
installed package that comes with the Wine package)

Scott Ritchie

More information about the wine-devel mailing list