On 06/04/2012 03:05 AM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Dan Kegel<d...@kegel.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Frédéric Delanoy
<frederic.dela...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Dan Kegel<daniel.r.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://winetricks.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/install-gecko.sh now
also installs mono. ...
Wouldn't it be better (and more acceptable for people
disliking/wanting to avoid mono) to
- keep install-gecko.sh as is
- create install-mono.sh
- create wine-install-addons.sh calling the former
?
The point of this script is to make life easier for me and
for the average user. It's not to make life easier for
people who don't like mono, mostly because I doubt
there are many of them.
My comment was not only meant for "mono-haters", but it can also be
useful IMHO to split e.g. to limit download size.when one doesn't even
need mono, and it maybe clearer as well ("addons" is pretty generic).
Frédéric
Actually, it really is the name that matters. 'mono' is a lightning
rod for a lot of political history. If you were to integrate the same
functions into Wine itself, and hopefully avoid tripping over the
stinking Microsoft patents, that set of problems can be avoided,
A native MSWindows application that wants .net support would either
connect to the installed dll that provides the required services or
install such a dll. It would know nothing about 'mono'. It is only
non-MSWindows platform programs that will try to link to the
non-MSWinows libraries in 'mono'.
So an MSWindows executable looking for .net support needs .net support,
NOT mono. We can and should provide such executables the services they
need. However we should NOT make it easy for programs from other
platforms to fall into the stinking Microsoft Patent trap. That
gateway to hell is called 'mono' and we should NOT open it.
