Jo Shields <direct...@apebox.org> wrote: > I can't fix the bug without a major upstream version bump. I can't bump > the version without some rather concerning behaviour from upstream > (namely, the moon 2.0+ source package needs to bundle a local fork of > mono and mono-basic source, something I've been told by ftpmaster not to > even bother trying).
I've just talked with the ftpmaster on IRC regarding this issue. Here's what he has to say about it (I'm mbn, he's Ganneff): <mbn> Ganneff... moon (package for moonlight) ftbfs on amd64 and that will not change until a new version is packaged, but the new version will need to bundle mono. It would be cool to know if bundling mono with moon (as the other distros are doing) is acceptable or not, so the future of the moon package can be decided (either upgraded, and start shipping a bundle, or dropped, and stop having silverlight on debian) <mbn> Ganneff, more info at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=595834 and http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=530251 <Ganneff> mono as in that language? <Ganneff> no, thats not ok to bundle <mbn> I thought so :-) Can you please take some time to state so in #530251, so steps can be made regarding it? <mbn> (and thanks for your time) <Ganneff> mbn: feel free to forward it there <mbn> Ganneff I just hate having that issue "pending"... :-) <Ganneff> mbn: actually the bug does list me saying exactly this already <mbn> OK, will do, and thanks. Yes it does, but since it's not on your ink, there's also the "is he sure?" ;-) <Ganneff> mbn: we are always sure that bundling stuff which is already in the archive is plain wrong. <Ganneff> mbn: and if the stuff in the archive needs some patches to be useful the way to go is to patch it and MAYBE have it drop off one more binary package with the adjustements <Ganneff> mbn: there, feel free to quote, the position didnt change :) <mbn> I don't know enough on the issue (heck, I don't want to get near .net again in my life), but as far as I can see unbundling would be a bigger nightmare and we would end up with an unmaintainable package, so... maybe it's better to drop it off, but let's let the maintainer decide about that :-) So, here it is. After this I think that there are no reasons to decide something regarding this issue: either to pick up back the effort of packaging moon without bundling mono, drop amd64 support or drop the whole package... -- Marcos Marado -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
