So, it appears that there are non-ECMA bits even in the "most basic" Mono library. At this point, I was pretty sure we could reject the claim.
However, even in my freetarded factfinding frenzy I wanted to be sure, so I did something absolutely insane: I asked Jo Shields about it. (In case you don’t know, Mr. Shields packages Mono for Debian and Ubuntu.)
Mr. Shields was kind enough to respond, and here’s the summarized deal:
1. ECMA/non-ECMA is not a consideration in packaging Mono.
2. No distribution ships Mono with ECMA-only components.
3. It is not possible to do so without "deep surgery".
4. Splitting along ECMA/non-ECMA lines is not a priority.
So, we can reject the claim that distribution packagers are splitting Mono into ECMA/non-ECMA components.
[^] # Re: Source...
Posté par Albert_ . En réponse au journal Il fallait s'y attendre.. Évalué à 0.
D'autre personnes se sont penche sur la question et on pose la question a des grans fans de mono. La reponse de ces derniers est assez "amusante":
http://www.the-source.com/2010/12/on-mono-packaging/
So, it appears that there are non-ECMA bits even in the "most basic" Mono library. At this point, I was pretty sure we could reject the claim.
However, even in my freetarded factfinding frenzy I wanted to be sure, so I did something absolutely insane: I asked Jo Shields about it. (In case you don’t know, Mr. Shields packages Mono for Debian and Ubuntu.)
Mr. Shields was kind enough to respond, and here’s the summarized deal:
1. ECMA/non-ECMA is not a consideration in packaging Mono.
2. No distribution ships Mono with ECMA-only components.
3. It is not possible to do so without "deep surgery".
4. Splitting along ECMA/non-ECMA lines is not a priority.
So, we can reject the claim that distribution packagers are splitting Mono into ECMA/non-ECMA components.