On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> One small follow up:
>
>> Pending an audit to verify that no APIs were dropped or renamed,
>> perhaps we could also remove the 2.0 assemblies as well and modify the
>> runtime to remap all 2.0 assembly references to 4.0 to reduce both
Hi Miguel,
> The only downside to dropping the 2.0 profile would be that
> Mono could not be used to target the 2.0/3.5 runtimes.
>
> So perhaps this idea is not as hot as I initially thought.
Good thinking. :-)
Charlie
___
Mono-devel-list mailin
As you said, if this change broke compatibility with assembly built
against 2.0/3.5 runtime it can be a problem.
Maybe you can give a compilation flag and/or two different binary
distributions.
At 08.05 20/11/2009, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>One small follow up:
>
> > Pending an audit to verif
One small follow up:
> Pending an audit to verify that no APIs were dropped or renamed,
> perhaps we could also remove the 2.0 assemblies as well and modify the
> runtime to remap all 2.0 assembly references to 4.0 to reduce both the
> install size and the compilation time.
The only downside
Hello,
Since the CLR 4.0 will be shipping early next year, roughly
around the same time that we will ship Mono 2.8 I was thinking that we
might as well just switch our default now on SVN to be based on the
4.0 profile instead of defaulting to the 2.0 profile;
The 4.0 API is pret
