Mono packaging status
scott at open-vote.org
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
>> 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 source.winehq.org, 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)
More information about the wine-devel