Debian Bug report logs - #530251
new upstream release 2.0

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Fathi Boudra <fabo@debian.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 1.9.2

Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 13:15:19 +0200

Package: moonlight-plugin-mozilla
Severity: wishlist

please package the new upstream release 1.9.2

TIA

cheers,

Fathi

Message #10 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jo Shields <directhex@apebox.org>

To: Fathi Boudra <fabo@debian.org>, 530251@bugs.debian.org

Cc: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#530251: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 1.9.2

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:41:03 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 13:15 +0200, Fathi Boudra wrote:
> Package: moonlight-plugin-mozilla
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> please package the new upstream release 1.9.2

We don't intend to package the preview releases. Firstly, they need SVN
Mono in order to compile. Secondly, they're horribly unstable right now
(and very very leaky). Thirdly they may contain security issues (as
warned on the official page at http://go-mono.com/moonlight-preview).
And fourthly, the changes upstream are making to their build process on
a daily basis would make it a real PITA to chase weekly preview releases
with packages.

Oh, and I'll need to start on the paperwork due to the reduced number of
supported architectures.

Once there's something a little more stable to work with, like a beta,
then packages will land.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #22 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Fathi Boudra <fabo@debian.org>

To: 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 2.0

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:57:05 +0100

Hi,

hopefully, this new upstream release will be packaged.
2.0 is here ;)

cheers,

Fathi

Message #27 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

To: 530251@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 2.0

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:33:19 +0000

retitle 530251 new upstream release 2.0
thanks

The official release was done already, any news/plans on debianization?

Message #34 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

To: Jo Shields <directhex@apebox.org>

Cc: 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-mono-group] Bug#530251: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 2.0

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:51:53 +0200

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:58:31PM +0000, Jo Shields wrote:
> I don't know how to make this packageable, given the bundling
> restriction.

Since it doesn't sound like solveable in a timely manner, would it
be possible to have unofficial packages in the meanwhile?

Message #39 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jo Shields <directhex@apebox.org>

To: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>, 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-mono-group] Bug#530251: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 2.0

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:58:31 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 15:33 +0000, Riku Voipio wrote:
> retitle 530251 new upstream release 2.0
> thanks
> 
> The official release was done already, any news/plans on debianization?

Ehm....... It's a non-trivial question.

The big problem is Moonlight requires a bundled copy of the whole of
Mono 2.6 - which may or may not be slightly different to the "normal"
2.6 release tarballs at any given moment. And it'll fail hard if you
deviate even slightly on the version you bundle in

FTP Master has been rejecting packages for bundling a tiny thing like
zlib, so you can imagine their response when I asked about a 35 meg Mono
bundle.

I don't know how to make this packageable, given the bundling
restriction.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #44 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jo Shields <directhex@apebox.org>

To: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

Cc: 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-mono-group] Bug#530251: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 2.0

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:17:20 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 18:51 +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:58:31PM +0000, Jo Shields wrote:
> > I don't know how to make this packageable, given the bundling
> > restriction.
> 
> Since it doesn't sound like solveable in a timely manner, would it
> be possible to have unofficial packages in the meanwhile?

I got about halfway through packaging it before I decided it was doomed
to failure (due to aforementioned issue with ftpmaster policy). It's a
fairly major packaging job, and non-trivial to get right, so I decided
not to bother when I had other things with hope of actually making it to
the archive to get on with.

I could be persuaded to finish what I had, though.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #49 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jo Shields <directhex@apebox.org>

To: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

Cc: 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-mono-group] Bug#530251: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 2.0

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:30:13 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 18:51 +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:58:31PM +0000, Jo Shields wrote:
> > I don't know how to make this packageable, given the bundling
> > restriction.
> 
> Since it doesn't sound like solveable in a timely manner, would it
> be possible to have unofficial packages in the meanwhile?

I'm going to package this in Ubuntu, and have been told by an Archive
Admin (equivalent to ftp-master) that the bundling isn't a blocker.
You're welcome to participate and build Debian packages from the source:
https://launchpad.net/~moonlight-team

It's empty right now - I'll try to learn enough bzr tonight to upload
what I have.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #54 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andres Cimmarusti <acimmarusti@gmail.com>

To: 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: no solution?

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:19:03 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

The ubuntu repo is empty...

I would really like this in Debian. Right now, I'm using moonlight by
installing the plugin from their site.
A solution (short term) would be to make a package like
'flashplugin-nonfree' that is essentially a script to download the place the
mozilla plugin in the right place.

in the long term this problem may be solved... please don't give up!...I'm
learning packaging! I hope I can contribute soon.

Thanks

Andres

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #59 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org>

To: 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 1.9.2

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:52:23 -0500

> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 18:51 +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:58:31PM +0000, Jo Shields wrote:
> > > I don't know how to make this packageable, given the bundling
> > > restriction.
> >
> > Since it doesn't sound like solveable in a timely manner, would it
> > be possible to have unofficial packages in the meanwhile?
>
> I'm going to package this in Ubuntu, and have been told by an Archive
> Admin (equivalent to ftp-master) that the bundling isn't a blocker.
> You're welcome to participate and build Debian packages from the
> source: https://launchpad.net/~moonlight-team

Has anyone actually explained the situation to the ftp-masters and asked 
for an opinion/exemption? It seems that moonlight in Debian is being 
given up on rather easily.

Either an effort should be made to package moonlight 2 and ship it with 
the next release, or else the ftp-masters reject it and should then be 
asked to remove moonlight from the archive rather than be forced to 
support increasingly ancient software. The ftp-masters can then explain 
to our users why moonlight just isn't good enough for Debian...

Christopher Martin

Message #64 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jo Shields <directhex@apebox.org>

To: Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org>, 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-mono-group] Bug#530251: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 1.9.2

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:10:56 +0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
On 13/03/2010 22:52, Christopher Martin wrote:
> Has anyone actually explained the situation to the ftp-masters and asked
> for an opinion/exemption? It seems that moonlight in Debian is being
> given up on rather easily.
>
> Either an effort should be made to package moonlight 2 and ship it with
> the next release, or else the ftp-masters reject it and should then be
> asked to remove moonlight from the archive rather than be forced to
> support increasingly ancient software. The ftp-masters can then explain
> to our users why moonlight just isn't good enough for Debian...

I spoke with Ganneff (i think, or someone else in #debian-ftp), who
flat-out said he'd REJECT it if it contained as much bundled stuff as
it does.

I agree with your points though. removing what's already in the
archive might be a good plan if there's no chance of movement on
accepting 2.2-1.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLnCmQAAoJEMkPnLkOH60MwEsIAM4dA3ZW9oG2FQgxTG6vVr+O
QMmmUH8/jhJZHKzO0cUuDEBPi5JayuEtp+7w97YpIiYMzSrr/bRznc485sX9ryPr
9V3AeHFDB8dd6V39lmWyvivOPjza7KuxzlxqiYENzSznrwanXhNXa/BRhd6hx1T1
fK41XF0eucuDzLaFIDm5AOph+w+EgEcjcEQWudQqNs2dpVyQzIFJfNOAGs52RLEI
NK51dMa2eEm5dnz27DwaFkuuYi4LMzagaXVRXLlWsVUl/TeFn+LVZ9FGXeoDP0Dj
A6ARFIVz/foBimyf95lOz1Ty+Fw9k8SA6sD2Pd6ez86XcDyp9FA9TXvnhgP9k7w=
=sR8J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #69 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org>

To: Undisclosed.Recipients:

Cc: 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-mono-group] Bug#530251: [moonlight-plugin-mozilla] new upstream release 1.9.2

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:43:41 -0400

On March 13, 2010 19:10:56 Jo Shields wrote:
> I spoke with Ganneff (i think, or someone else in #debian-ftp), who
> flat-out said he'd REJECT it if it contained as much bundled stuff as
> it does.
>
> I agree with your points though. removing what's already in the
> archive might be a good plan if there's no chance of movement on
> accepting 2.2-1.

I obviously missed that IRC exchange, but I wonder how deeply Ganneff 
thought about the implications of his comment (i.e. no more moonlight 
in Debian) or whether he realized that bundling was truly unavoidable 
in the case of this package, and that that is simply how everyone else 
is doing it (Ubuntu, other distributions I assume). Would an e-mail 
laying it all out get better results? Who knows... but I wish you luck.

Christopher Martin

Message #74 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Marcos Marado <mindboosternoori@gmail.com>

To: 595834@bugs.debian.org, 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Re: [pkg-mono-group] Bug#595834: moon: FTBFS in squeeze: ff3-dom.cpp:10:22: error: nsCOMPtr.h: No such file or directory

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:47:22 +0000

Jo Shields <directhex@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

Message #79 received at 530251@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jo Shields <directhex@apebox.org>

To: Marcos Marado <mindboosternoori@gmail.com>, 530251@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-mono-group] Bug#530251: Re: Bug#595834: moon: FTBFS in squeeze: ff3-dom.cpp:10:22: error: nsCOMPtr.h: No such file or directory

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:04:45 +0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
On 15/11/2010 20:47, Marcos Marado wrote:
> 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...

It's not AMD64 specific. It's entirely unbuildable as-is on any
architecture. The Firefox plugin API has changed too much, and there's
no relationship between the current plugin code in Moonlight and the
version in Debian, so patching's out.

3.0 upstream should be slightly more realistic, requiring a bundle of
a limited subset of the mono-2-6 branch rather than the whole thing.
Alternatively, once Mono 2.8 hits the archive, it goes from being a
matter of "it'd be a huge pain in the ass to keep an unmaintainable
tens-of-thousands-of-lines diff" unbundling, to a somewhat more
unreasonable "it-wont-build-without-millions-of-lines-of-reverts
diff". Which would make the case for bundling somewhat clearer.

And I'd like to remind Joerg that chromium-browser was allowed in when
it bundles over 40 external libraries, not least of which is ffmpeg.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM4disAAoJEMkPnLkOH60MSNkIAKnpeYg76bXVb/ee+Vg737Sh
QlXpajT1WadBngoytxYRzxddgcw4hu3EpP26s4Qih4SepR5u3k5bLkQv2eOFLBGk
m6cjGy3fvSYpvRsKAntkI2RByOthKerhHVgY0wRP4vChmcgh9TBYTiU9UFAIeKtk
Wnv1c0L935KKhpHkTjqNweGwSfY+CWEXZVstkSAhleVY0SxgN22MnrRjh+PX/g2W
5neej2JPChoR4OsbKksEm0g85SbzOPVd5mT+mIYLhrw2ZgMEm9lnpAJZ4dUXPsCm
grEl2aULFlk0klVLi7RHkUbPJbBJyutKDdPn6UV4CwvBSq62u3/as0jEVZhE+ZI=
=gRkj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #84 received at 530251-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: 523799-done@bugs.debian.org,530251-done@bugs.debian.org,537396-done@bugs.debian.org,538092-done@bugs.debian.org,558938-done@bugs.debian.org,589375-done@bugs.debian.org,595834-done@bugs.debian.org,624883-done@bugs.debian.org,631047-done@bugs.debian.org,

Cc: moon@packages.debian.org, moon@packages.qa.debian.org

Subject: Bug#638565: Removed package(s) from unstable

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:54:27 +0000

Version: 1.0.1-3+b2+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package moon has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see http://bugs.debian.org/638565

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Luca Falavigna (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.