timatou wrote:We need mono and xbuild to compile the program?
Yes. It seems so. But nobody wants to build both of them.
It is some kind of porting M$ logic to Linux, you know.
And this for only providing a "simple" painting application, but there are so weird dependencies.
So, I am out of this, and maybe others too.
This is no trolling.
I understand, it's maybe a simple painting software, but I never found any equivalent. No one to fork this fork without mono and any strange dependencies?
That couldn't be a fork, it would have to be pretty much a complete rewrite from scratch. The reason is that .NET/mono is basically a separate programming language with a mechanism similar to a virtual machine. IMO that approach has some nice advantages especially regarding stability and Microsoft even wrote an OS completely in .NET for testing purposes, but it has some big disadvantages too. Most importantly it's not established in the Unix world.
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29
Well I've got mono built, but pinta also need gtk-sharp which also needs to be build. In the end there's going to be four packages that will be needed, pinta, mono, libgdiplus and gtk-sharp.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?"
laprjns wrote:Well I've got mono built, but pinta also need gtk-sharp which also needs to be build. In the end there's going to be four packages that will be needed, pinta, mono, libgdiplus and gtk-sharp.
That represent a lot of work I guess, if I'll the only one to use the software around there, don't waste your time anymore, it doesn't matter.
Thanks again all, for your effort and the informations