Monomania (Tux Deluxe) [LWN.net]

Monomania (Tux Deluxe)

Posted Oct 15, 2009 16:09 UTC (Thu) by leomilano (guest, #32220)
In reply to: Monomania (Tux Deluxe) by laurencevde
Parent article: Monomania (Tux Deluxe)

Nasty stuff! In the meantime, RedHat keeps a strong leadership in the server, and I am starting to move my desktops to purely Qt/KDE installs (to avoid any Mono contamination).

to post comments

Monomania (Tux Deluxe)

Posted Oct 15, 2009 16:16 UTC (Thu) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (5 responses)

There is no need to switch to KDE to avoid Mono. All you need to do is


yum remove "mono*"

The dependency of GNOME on Mono is greatly exaggerated.

Monomania (Tux Deluxe)

Posted Oct 15, 2009 20:25 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (4 responses)

Feel free to borrow and work from the antipackages--the general idea is to install "no-mono" to make the package manager warn you if you bring in something that depends on it. (Also antipackages for no-java, no-python, to be fair.)

Monomania (Tux Deluxe)

Posted Oct 16, 2009 0:04 UTC (Fri) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (3 responses)

Nice idea! It would be great to have it in rpm format as well. Those who prefer to compile their own kernels might want an "antikernel".

Monomania (Tux Deluxe)

Posted Oct 16, 2009 1:01 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (2 responses)

You don't need a antipackage and you don't need to deal with that when you
compile your kernel.

When installing software use aptitude and when you install a bunch of crap
then make sure that mono is not among it. A antipackage would be useful for
that if you want to be lazy, which is fine, but you don't need it.

For custom kernels you use kernel-package and you can easily create your
own custom deb packages. Very simple and it does not break any Debian
systems like automatically updating initrds, automatic bootloader
configuration and stuff like that.

If you want to you can compile everything from source using the dpkg/apt-
get stuff, it is just that people don't normally do it because there is no
advantage to doing it most of the time.

Monomania (Tux Deluxe)

Posted Oct 16, 2009 1:52 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (1 responses)

Sure, you don't _need_ the antipackage, but it converts something you have to check for into something that fails.

Monomania (Tux Deluxe)

Posted Oct 16, 2009 3:14 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

If you want to exclude any packages, you can do something like exclude=foo* in /etc/yum.conf. I am not sure I understand the benefit of short circuiting the dep resolver.