Bug 1342852
| Summary: | The xbuild Microsoft.WebApplication.targets file should be included in package | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Oskar Berggren <oskar.berggren> |
| Component: | mono | Assignee: | Timotheus Pokorra <pokorra.mailinglists> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 23 | CC: | chkr, claudiorodrigo, itamar, lxtnow, paul, pokorra.mailinglists |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | mono-4.2.4-1.fc24 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-06-18 18:34:35 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
Thanks for reporting this bug! I am just wondering if the Microsoft targets files have been removed because they reference other files that don't exist in Mono? Did you copy the Microsoft targets files manually, and then your web application works on Mono in Fedora 23? If that is the case, I am happy to remove that line which removes the Microsoft targets files. What I know at this point is that I have a number of web applications developed with a locally built Mono 2.10 from a few years back, that doesn't build with the Fedora 23 mono stack. The old build environment is gone due to reinstalls. I've just managed to rebuild Mono 2.10 in a VM so I can refresh my memory on what build procedures I used. I'm also working on a local build of Mono 4.0 + MD 6 etc. but unfortunately it seems various build instructions, source tarballs etc. have been allowed to bitrot, so it's tedious work. Anyway, I hope to eventually compare the output of the old and new environment. On the other hand, these files are built by the Mono source. I think that lacking a documented problem or other reason for removing them, they should be included by default. I just want to avoid releasing too many updates for Fedora 23. So I prefer to know what else you might need to be included, and if including those files actually solves the problem for you. Would you be able to test with Fedora Rawhide first? When we know it works in Fedora Rawhide, I would apply the same fixes to Fedora 23 and Fedora 24. Or should I build a version for you in Copr, for Fedora 23, and you can verify from that whether it works for you or not? Of course you could do the same and just tell me that those fixes are sufficient. Copying the files from a custom build allowed MD to build my existing web application and run then from within MD. The targets-files are very incomplete in relation to Microsoft's versions - they don't do quite the right thing for publishing but I suspect this is no worse than in earlier versions. At least, having the file allows the build to succeed, even if the build features that the file is supposed to add doesn't quite work. I don't know if it's terribly important to fix in F23, but at least in F24. Still trying to figure out what the complete state of ASP.Net support in MD is at the moment. mono-4.2.3-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-abbd563ba8 mono-4.2.3-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-abbd563ba8 mono-4.2.4-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-960d44c3fb mono-4.2.4-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-960d44c3fb mono-4.2.4-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |
When building mono (4.0.5) from source tarball, the following files are produced: /usr/local/mono-4.0.5-custom/lib/mono/xbuild/Microsoft/Portable/v4.0/Microsoft.Portable.Common.targets /usr/local/mono-4.0.5-custom/lib/mono/xbuild/Microsoft/Portable/v4.0/Microsoft.Portable.VisualBasic.targets /usr/local/mono-4.0.5-custom/lib/mono/xbuild/Microsoft/Portable/v4.0/Microsoft.Portable.CSharp.targets /usr/local/mono-4.0.5-custom/lib/mono/xbuild/Microsoft/Portable/Microsoft.Portable.Core.targets /usr/local/mono-4.0.5-custom/lib/mono/xbuild/Microsoft/Portable/v4.5/Microsoft.Portable.Common.targets /usr/local/mono-4.0.5-custom/lib/mono/xbuild/Microsoft/Portable/v4.5/Microsoft.Portable.VisualBasic.targets /usr/local/mono-4.0.5-custom/lib/mono/xbuild/Microsoft/Portable/v4.5/Microsoft.Portable.CSharp.targets /usr/local/mono-4.0.5-custom/lib/mono/xbuild/Microsoft/VisualStudio/v9.0/WebApplications/Microsoft.WebApplication.targets /usr/local/mono-4.0.5-custom/lib/mono/xbuild/Microsoft/VisualStudio/v11.0/WebApplications/Microsoft.WebApplication.targets /usr/local/mono-4.0.5-custom/lib/mono/xbuild/Microsoft/VisualStudio/v10.0/WebApplications/Microsoft.WebApplication.targets These should also be included in the RPM. Because the Microsoft.WebApplication.targets file is missing from the RPM, my web applications doesn't build in monodevelop. These files are referenced from the project files. It seems this commit from 2009: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/mono.git/commit/mono.spec?h=f23&id=4f606a694c9566bc09b815318c623050054708ec added a line: +%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}%{monodir}/xbuild/Microsoft which I believe is causing the problem. Unfortunately, there seems to be no mention whatsoever WHY this was added.