Notice (2018-05-24): bugzilla.xamarin.com is now in
Please join us on
Visual Studio Developer Community and in the
Mono organizations on
GitHub to continue tracking issues. Bugzilla will remain
available for reference in read-only mode. We will continue to work
on open Bugzilla bugs, copy them to the new locations
as needed for follow-up, and add the new items under Related
Our sincere thanks to everyone who has contributed on this bug
tracker over the years. Thanks also for your understanding as we
make these adjustments and improvements for the future.
Please create a new report for Bug 29919 on
GitHub or Developer Community if you have new
information to add and do not yet see a matching new report.
If the latest results still closely match this report, you can use the
In special cases on GitHub you might also want the comments:
GitHub Markdown with public comments
As of Mono 4.0.1, the mono-find-provider/requires scripts always fail since they test for the existence of $libdir/libmono-2.0.so.1, which is no longer installed by the official RPMs. The file libmono-2.0.so does exist (as a symlink to libmonoboehm-2.0.so).
Related: I wonder why this check is present at all in these scripts, as no executable is ran from the scripts that makes use of that library from what I can tell. If the library check is necessary, shouldn't these scripts be included in the appropriate RPM package that ensures the library is installed? Installing mono-core and mono-develop installs these scripts, but doesn't install the necessary dependent package (libmono-2_0-1) that would allow these scripts to work (once the original issue above is fixed)
The spec file looks like it's wants to create libmono-2.0.so.1:
But I just verified that if I install just the libmono-2_0-1 package, nothing is installed.
If I install libmono-2_0-devel package, then I see the following in /usr/lib64:
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 19 May 11 00:17 /usr/lib64/libmono-2.0.so -> libmonoboehm-2.0.so
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 25 May 11 00:17 /usr/lib64/libmonoboehm-2.0.so -> libmonoboehm-2.0.so.1.0.0
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 25 May 11 00:17 /usr/lib64/libmonoboehm-2.0.so.1 -> libmonoboehm-2.0.so.1.0.0
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 13498339 May 6 16:31 /usr/lib64/libmonoboehm-2.0.so.1.0.0
RPM is weird.
bash-4.2# rpm -qpl libmono-2_0-1-4.0.1-2.x86_64.rpm
bash-4.2# rpm -ql libmono-2_0-1
bash-4.2# ls /usr/lib64/libmono-2.0.so.1
ls: cannot access /usr/lib64/libmono-2.0.so.1: No such file or directory
As to mono-find-*, those scripts are so fundamentally broken in so many ways... but I can't go making radical changes in ways that would break Fedora/SUSE compatibility without speaking to the distro maintainers. If you have bright ideas on improving those scripts, send a pull request and chances are anything half-sane will get accepted.
I've just pushed a slightly less buggy RPM.
The current scripts seem fairly straight-forward to me. What kinds of changes are you looking for? I might have time to make the changes.
The biggest problem by far is the Mono metadata dependency/provides isn't restricted to the GAC. So for example, if MonoDevelop bundles its own NUnit in /usr/lib/monodevelop/addins/NUnit, a preocprovides: mono(NUnit)=18.104.22.168 gets added to monodevelop.rpm, even though thatthat install location is private. This even causes RPMs to satisfy their own dependencies, eg the monodevelop/NUnit case.
The Debian dependency generators know which packages contain which public (ie GAC) assemblies, and either add a dependency on the relevant package or throw a fatal error during the build for any unknown and unresolvable assembly references. This process also tracks across dllmaps into unmanaged libs.