http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #63 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-10-06 22:20:23 ---
Well Jo stopped responding to my mailing list questions so I assume he's too
busy to deal with someone who has too much to learn about mono/moonlight.
Getting the
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #61 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-10-01 14:01:57 ---
Here's the response I got from the mono mailing list:
On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 14:35 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
I'm trying to package moonlight for possible inclusion at
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #59 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-09-30 16:21:05 ---
(In reply to comment #58)
@Richard: consider to join
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-packagers-list
It was the reference point at least until the
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #60 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-09-30 21:36:23 ---
I joined both that mailing list and the Fedora mono mailing list and posted the
issues I'm having. Neither of them seemed particularly active looking at the
archives.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #53 from Chen Lei supercy...@163.com 2010-05-13 08:09:37 ---
Is there any volunteer to package moonlight 2.2?
http://ftp.novell.com/pub/mono/sources/moon/2.2/
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #51 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-09-21 20:14:32 ---
Condemned to oblivion?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #52 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-09-21 21:37:33
---
It looks like the package request does not have the official reviewer yet. All
comments so far were made to bring it to a reviewable state. I might be able to
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #50 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-09-08 13:29:52 ---
Any news about this review?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #48 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-08-28 09:45:27
---
Moonlight 2 is currently in late beta stages, I think it would be prudent to
push that version through review instead of the aging 1.0.1 since that does not
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #49 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-08-28 10:28:42 ---
(In reply to comment #48)
Moonlight 2 is currently in late beta stages, I think it would be prudent to
push that version through review instead of the aging 1.0.1
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #47 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-08-27 14:57:04 ---
Updated:
http://olea.org/tmp/moonlight.spec
http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/mono/moonlight-tools-1.0.1-10.fc10.i386.rpm --
right link
* Wed Aug 26 2009 Ismael Olea
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #45 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2009-08-08 15:55:59
---
Ismael, can you address the problem that were raised? I really like to have
moonlight in RPM Fusion soon :)
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #44 from Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info 2009-08-04
19:59:36 ---
I'd really like to see this review finished...
(In reply to comment #43)
(In reply to comment #41)
(In reply to comment #40)
* The %doc for all
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #43 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-07-03 00:13:48
---
(In reply to comment #41)
(In reply to comment #40)
! The moonlight in Fedora 11 is compiled with --enable-moonlight=yes. So you
may want to enable the
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #41 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-06-29 13:14:11 ---
(In reply to comment #40)
! The moonlight in Fedora 11 is compiled with --enable-moonlight=yes. So you
may want to enable the with_managed for Fedora 11.
No, I don't
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #42 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-06-29 13:16:32 ---
Brr, sorry my horrible English in the last comment... I write faster than I
can think about.
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #39 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-05-23 10:16:03 ---
Cosmetics aren't unimportant; other people need to be able to read / fix your
.spec files too.
Also: usually additional %package sections go after the %description
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #35 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-05-19 22:41:28 ---
@Nicholas is there any trouble to finally approve this package? Can I help on
something more?
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #37 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-05-19 23:12:54
---
Phew. I agree with Nicolas about readability of the spec file.
* Please move the %files sections down, to right before the changelog. And
%post* sections can
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #33 from David Nielsen gnomeu...@gmail.com 2009-05-13 14:27:48
---
Would you consider packaging moonlight 1.9.x for Rawhide, they do biweekly (or
weekly I forget) releases now and it would be helpful to be able to test them
on
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #34 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-05-13 14:39:08 ---
(In reply to comment #33)
Would you consider packaging moonlight 1.9.x for Rawhide, they do biweekly (or
weekly I forget) releases now and it would be helpful to be
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #32 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-05-08 00:14:21 ---
Release 6, with patches from debian fixing a bug and a crash:
http://olea.org/tmp/moonlight.spec
http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/mono/moonlight-1.0.1-6.fc10.src.rpm
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #31 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-05-04 16:21:04 ---
(In reply to comment #29)
Why are theses options not using the usual %configure macro ?
%{?env_options}
%{?configure_options}
I removed this.
Why aren't you using
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #30 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-05-02 02:13:49 ---
(In reply to comment #28)
Do you need changes with moonlight being enabled in the mono fedora package ?
Not for the momment. As said I'm focusing on Silverlight 1.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #28 from NicolasChauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-04-11 10:48:17 ---
Do you need changes with moonlight being enabled in the mono fedora package ?
Does mono have been downgraded in fedora? (wasn't working for ppc).
--
Configure
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #29 from NicolasChauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-04-11 10:55:50 ---
I still don't like the way the spec sort it's different part.
Specially having %file section before the %install ones
Why are theses options not using the usual
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #27 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-04-03 11:08:03 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
An interesting approach would be finding a way to have this be separate
subpackages (moonlight-nopants and moonlight-ffmpeg). For testing
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #24 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-03-25 03:54:18 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
While not strictly required by the packaging guidelines, I'd strongly urge you
to use:
Release:4%{?dist}
instead of your:
Release:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #25 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-03-25 04:41:06 ---
For the record, I've just asked the activation of the --with-moonling switch in
Fedora's mono: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492048
--
Configure
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #23 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2009-03-24 00:31:58
---
While not strictly required by the packaging guidelines, I'd strongly urge you
to use:
Release:4%{?dist}
instead of your:
Release:4
Otherwise,
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review request: Moonlight - |Review request:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #21 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-03-22 13:31:09 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Done in release 3
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #22 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-03-22 13:33:16 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
And please enable ffmpeg in the RPM Fusion package, otherwise people will have
to download the non-Free M$ codecs to play back any multimedia
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #12 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2009-03-17 10:09:47
---
(In reply to comment #11)
I have found a special issue with this package, which is caused by the fact,
that the mon package in fedora was build with
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
Configure
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #13 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-03-17 14:36:42 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
* Why is this overriding __find_provides and __find_requires?
* Why are you disabling ffmpeg support?
I've mimic the original SuSE packaging
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #14 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-03-17 14:40:09 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
One more: why are the managed/mono portions disabled?
Because this is for Silverlight 2.0 support. Moonlight 1.0 is supporting
Silverlight
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
NicolasChauvet kwiz...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package- |kwiz...@gmail.com
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
NicolasChauvet kwiz...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #16 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-03-17 15:20:25 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
So we should take any affort to get build the mono package with
--enable-moonlight=yes. The patent issue which was discussed with moonlight
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #17 from Ismael Olea ism...@olea.org 2009-03-17 15:40:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=126)
-- (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=126)
rpmlint output
The second release attending most of your suggestions:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #18 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2009-03-17 16:34:14
---
Some comments:
* Summary can be better. E.g. An open source implementation of Silverlight.
* I would also remove every reference to Novell. Is that really
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #19 from NicolasChauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2009-03-17 18:13:58 ---
For the record, here are the Mono packaging guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #20 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2009-03-17 18:52:59
---
And please enable ffmpeg in the RPM Fusion package, otherwise people will have
to download the non-Free M$ codecs to play back any multimedia content.
--
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #7 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2009-03-15 10:22:54
---
Ismael, it seems you are already a Fedora sponsored packager:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/olea
If it is so, you can get rid of the
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|30 |
--- Comment #8
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
NicolasChauvet kwiz...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kwiz...@gmail.com
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kon...@tylerc.org
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-03-15 01:33:58 ---
Also: did you read http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors at all?
Please include rpmlint output as well as why this package is not allowed in
Fedora.
--
Configure
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2009-03-15 02:06:29
---
One more: why are the managed/mono portions disabled?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2009-03-15 02:15:45
---
Oh, another 3 complaints:
* libmoon0 is another openSUSEism, please call that package moonlight-libs
(just use %package libs, %files libs etc.).
* -n
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #3 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2009-03-15 01:59:51
---
I think the legal and political concerns the Fedora project has relating to
this package are still relevant to RPM Fusion, and thus I'm opposed to this
being
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2009-03-15 02:20:19
---
Oh, some more complaints:
* Please remove # Please submit bugfixes or comments via
http://bugs.opensuse.org/;.
* # norootforbuild has no meaning in Fedora or RPM
57 matches
Mail list logo
