Hi,
Provided I'm right, the downloads page is still pointing to the old yast
repositories for OpenSUSE...
http://ftp.novell.com/pub/mono/download-stable/suse-103-i586
Is that ok?
It will have an impact on new users trying to download the latest version.
__
As we announced before we are only producing binaries for
openSUSE 11.0
SUSE Linux Enterprise 10
Windows
Mac OS X
We have left up the old repositories for now. We may remove them around the
2.2 release cycle.
>>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/06/08 2:18 PM >>>
Hi,
Provided I'm r
2008/10/6 Andrew Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As we announced before we are only producing binaries for
>
> openSUSE 11.0
> SUSE Linux Enterprise 10
> Windows
> Mac OS X
>
> We have left up the old repositories for now. We may remove them around
> the 2.2 release cycle.
>
Jezz way to alie
The original announcement about that is here:
http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-devel-list/2008-September/029144.html
It would not be terribly difficult to make 2.0 available for 10.3 but we must
be clear on the point that it is not tested and therefore not supported. We
don't want to alie
2008/10/7 Andrew Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The original announcement about that is here:
>
> http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-devel-list/2008-September/029144.html
>
> It would not be terribly difficult to make 2.0 available for 10.3 but we
> must be clear on the point that it is not t
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> The original announcement about that is here:
> http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-devel-list/2008-September/029144.html
>
> It would not be terribly difficult to make 2.0 available for 10.3 but we must
> be clear on the point that it is not tested and th
Sounds to me like it's a problem with the .repo file, not with the repository
itself. Please file a bug against the Build Service. Also try adding using
just the URL.
- Andrew
>>> Robert Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/07/08 5:09 AM >>>
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> The original announ
Hey Andrew,
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> Sounds to me like it's a problem with the .repo file, not with the
> repository itself. Please file a bug against the Build Service.
> Also try adding using just the URL.
Adding by URL doesn't work either. I'll file a bug.
Thanks
Robert
__
Hi Andrew,
> Please do consider upgrading to 11.0. It's a solid release
> with vastly improved package management among other things.
Bear in mind that some of us develop and support tools. We
don't have the ability to simply upgrade. Instead, we have to
add each new release to those we try to
So, *right now* the only way to use mono 2.0 on OpenSuse < 11 is
building the source?
If there's other way, a howto would be greatly appreciated
Robert Jordan escribió:
> Hey Andrew,
>
> Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
>
>> Sounds to me like it's a problem with the .repo file, not with the
>> repos
It looks like the 32-bit openSUSE 10.3 builds have not finished yet. This may
or may not explain repository problems.
I have also enabled 10.2 and SLE 9 but, again, we are not supporting these (and
I'm not reallly sure if SLE 9 will build).
I cannot be sure but it is very likely that we will no
Any plans for the BitRock based installer? This one supports all distros
and is good enough, easy enough, and will make most of the people happy.
Again, I'm thinking about Mono adoption. You've done an excellent job
guys, we've probably one of the best software development platforms
around, but
I know SUSE sponsors the project, but is there a good reason for not
producing .deb packages for Debian/*buntu, the most popular line of distro?
Anyway congrats with the release, looking forward to taking it for a spin!
/Casper
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> As we announced before we are only produ
The biggest reason is that Debian/Ubuntu ships Mono with their system,
and chops it up differently than Suse does. This means there is a good
chance that our packages would cause problems on your machine when we
overwrite those packages with the new ones. IE: things like Banshee,
F-Spot, and
Hello,
> I know SUSE sponsors the project, but is there a good reason for not
> producing .deb packages for Debian/*buntu, the most popular line of distro?
>
> Anyway congrats with the release, looking forward to taking it for a spin!
Debian ships their own package, and we do not want to end up
> Jezz way to alienate the user base. Ive been using Mono for a
> number of years, and one of my main reasons for using SuSe/openSuse
> was due to the fact that Novell always made sure that the mono
> releases were availble for the last couple of suse releases. Now Im
> faced with either upg
> I would upgrade to 11.0, but I generally wait for the ##.1 releases
> after the whole problems that where experienced with the 10.0 release;
> and also I have to make sure all apps still work the same way in the
> new OS release, otherwise I alienate the wife from Linux adoption.
I understand t
Hello,
> Any plans for the BitRock based installer? This one supports all distros
> and is good enough, easy enough, and will make most of the people happy.
We are abandoning the BitRock installer because Mono installations ended
up broken many times. This had two unfortunate side effects, we
I have the same problem. Except OpenSuse11 and SLE11 no other platforms
packages are in supported list.
Our product runs on RHEL and sle9 as well. Would like to know if it is
planned in future to support them?
Thanks,
Vadiraj
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So, *right now* the only way to use
19 matches
Mail list logo
