On 06/04/2012 03:05 AM, Frédéric Delanoy wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Dan Kegeldank@kegel.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Frédéric Delanoy frederic.delanoy@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Dan Kegeldaniel.r.kegel@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.