The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra? http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/ Moonlight is an open source implementation of Microsoft Silverlight for Unix systems. It's avaible for 32/64 bit! Release Notes Final release of Moonlight 1.0 Support for the Microsoft Media Pack Quick and easy installation of media codecs Several media releate bug fixes I hope one of the dev's like to pick this up.
Amanai wrote:
The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra?
http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/
Moonlight is an open source implementation of Microsoft Silverlight for Unix systems. It's avaible for 32/64 bit!
Release Notes Final release of Moonlight 1.0 Support for the Microsoft Media Pack Quick and easy installation of media codecs Several media releate bug fixes
I hope one of the dev's like to pick this up.
Use the force: http://aur.archlinux.org/index.php Glenn
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:57:26 -0800, RedShift <redshift@pandora.be> wrote:
Amanai wrote:
The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra? http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/ Moonlight is an open source implementation of Microsoft Silverlight for Unix systems. It's avaible for 32/64 bit! Release Notes Final release of Moonlight 1.0 Support for the Microsoft Media Pack Quick and easy installation of media codecs Several media releate bug fixes I hope one of the dev's like to pick this up.
Use the force: http://aur.archlinux.org/index.php
Glenn
AUR is a kids playground, how only blow up your system. Moonlight is important, if you like to navigate the browser in Windows Live websites or another websites how depend on silverlight. Like Adobe Flash Player, it will be great to find this in extra or community. I hope some dev will pick it up!
Amanai wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:57:26 -0800, RedShift <redshift@pandora.be> wrote:
Amanai wrote:
The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra? http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/ Moonlight is an open source implementation of Microsoft Silverlight for Unix systems. It's avaible for 32/64 bit! Release Notes Final release of Moonlight 1.0 Support for the Microsoft Media Pack Quick and easy installation of media codecs Several media releate bug fixes I hope one of the dev's like to pick this up.
Use the force: http://aur.archlinux.org/index.php
Glenn
AUR is a kids playground, how only blow up your system. Moonlight is important, if you like to navigate the browser in Windows Live websites or another websites how depend on silverlight. Like Adobe Flash Player, it will be great to find this in extra or community.
I hope some dev will pick it up!
Because it's a kid's playground doesn't mean it's useless. Make a moonlight package yourself and up it into the AUR. If your package gains enough traction and votes, it might just make its way into extra. With the force I mean the community. You ARE the community. Glenn
On 01:25, Thu 22 Jan 09, Amanai wrote:
The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra?
Currently the SVN version of Moonlight is available via AUR, the package is called "moon-svn." Thomas
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:19:55 -0800, Thomas Bohn <thomas@bohnomat.de> wrote:
On 01:25, Thu 22 Jan 09, Amanai wrote:
The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra?
Currently the SVN version of Moonlight is available via AUR, the package is called "moon-svn."
Thomas
I pick this up. I don't want to build it and upload moonlight for AUR. I don't want to use any packages from AUR. Archlinux have in Extra Repo's flashplugin swfdec gnash libflashsupport it is just missing "moonlight"!
-----Original Message-----
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:28:36 +0100 Subject: Re: [arch-general] Moonlight 1.0 From: Amanai <amanai@freenet.de> To: "General Discusson about Arch Linux" <arch-general@archlinux.org>
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:19:55 -0800, Thomas Bohn <thomas@bohnomat.de> wrote:
On 01:25, Thu 22 Jan 09, Amanai wrote:
The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra?
Currently the SVN version of Moonlight is available via AUR, the package is called "moon-svn."
Thomas
I pick this up. I don't want to build it and upload moonlight for AUR. I don't want to use any packages from AUR.
Archlinux have in Extra Repo's
flashplugin swfdec gnash libflashsupport
it is just missing "moonlight"!
File a feature request.
stefan-husmann@t-online.de wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:28:36 +0100 Subject: Re: [arch-general] Moonlight 1.0 From: Amanai <amanai@freenet.de> To: "General Discusson about Arch Linux" <arch-general@archlinux.org>
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:19:55 -0800, Thomas Bohn <thomas@bohnomat.de> wrote:
On 01:25, Thu 22 Jan 09, Amanai wrote:
The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra?
Currently the SVN version of Moonlight is available via AUR, the package is called "moon-svn."
Thomas
I pick this up. I don't want to build it and upload moonlight for AUR. I don't want to use any packages from AUR.
Archlinux have in Extra Repo's
flashplugin swfdec gnash libflashsupport
it is just missing "moonlight"!
File a feature request.
In all honesty, I would close this as a "won't fix". If no-one is motivated enough to make a package for the stable version for this in the AUR and the community does not then vote for it, the demand is obviously not high enough for it to be included in the main repos. Allan
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
stefan-husmann@t-online.de wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:28:36 +0100 Subject: Re: [arch-general] Moonlight 1.0 From: Amanai <amanai@freenet.de> To: "General Discusson about Arch Linux" <arch-general@archlinux.org> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:19:55 -0800, Thomas Bohn <thomas@bohnomat.de> wrote:
On 01:25, Thu 22 Jan 09, Amanai wrote:
The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra?
Currently the SVN version of Moonlight is available via AUR, the package is called "moon-svn."
Thomas
I pick this up. I don't want to build it and upload moonlight for AUR. I don't want to use any packages from AUR.
Archlinux have in Extra Repo's
flashplugin swfdec gnash libflashsupport
it is just missing "moonlight"!
File a feature request.
In all honesty, I would close this as a "won't fix". If no-one is motivated enough to make a package for the stable version for this in the AUR and the community does not then vote for it, the demand is obviously not high enough for it to be included in the main repos.
Agreed. We're not in the habit of adding packages to extra simply because of one noisy user. We need to ensure people will actually use it so we're not wasting our time.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:39:40 -0800, stefan-husmann@t-online.de <stefan-husmann@t-online.de> wrote:
Hello,
I agree perfectly. But it would be the correct way to handle things like that, and would put some noise away from this list.
BTW, the new rules for the TUs would even forbid to put it to community without discussion. The devs might have some similar rules for putting something new to extra.
Regards Stefan
New rules? The voting never worked and will never working! On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:18:59 -0800, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed. We're not in the habit of adding packages to extra simply because of one noisy user. We need to ensure people will actually use it so we're not wasting our time.
It was just one question if "moonlight" will pe a part of Archlinux and you call me "noisy user"! You must be a typical american overweight kid to say this! Did I wake you up in your dreamworld? On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:14:49 -0800, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:
I gotta say, even with all the usual MS distrust that I've been carrying around since MS-DOS 3.x, on the surface Moonlight looks much more promising than the clusterfsck that is Flash. I'd be interested in at least giving it a shot.
--vk
This sounds mutch better,
-----Original Message-----
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:09:44 +0100 Subject: Re: [arch-general] Moonlight 1.0 From: Amanai <amanai@freenet.de> To: "General Discusson about Arch Linux" <arch-general@archlinux.org>
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:39:40 -0800, stefan-husmann@t-online.de <stefan-husmann@t-online.de> wrote:
Hello,
I agree perfectly. But it would be the correct way to handle things like that, and would put some noise away from this list.
BTW, the new rules for the TUs would even forbid to put it to community without discussion. The devs might have some similar rules for putting something new to extra.
Regards Stefan
New rules? The voting never worked and will never working!
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:18:59 -0800, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed. We're not in the habit of adding packages to extra simply because of one noisy user. We need to ensure people will actually use it so we're not wasting our time.
It was just one question if "moonlight" will pe a part of Archlinux and you call me "noisy user"! You must be a typical american overweight kid to say this! Did I wake you up in your dreamworld?
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:14:49 -0800, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:
I gotta say, even with all the usual MS distrust that I've been carrying around since MS-DOS 3.x, on the surface Moonlight looks much more promising than the clusterfsck that is Flash. I'd be interested in at least giving it a shot.
--vk
This sounds mutch better,
They may work or not, rules are rules.
Amani, your posts to this list are now moderated. I will review them all for insults before approving them. Try to be civil, please, especially when you're asking other people to do work for you. Back on topic: One user talking on an ML does not make a package important. I have not yet run into a site that requires moonlight/silverlight. So, until we're actually going to get usage out of this package, putting it in extra is wasted effort. Now, if we have a dev willing to do it, that's fine - I'd recommend asking the mono maintainer or something of the sort. But considering it's not in the repos yet, I don't think we have any devs that care that much. The proper course for things of this nature is to put it in the AUR, and we can garner some need from that. Cheers, Aaron
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:22:12 -0600 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Back on topic: One user talking on an ML does not make a package important. I have not yet run into a site that requires moonlight/silverlight. So, until we're actually going to get usage out of this package, putting it in extra is wasted effort. Now, if we have a dev willing to do it, that's fine - I'd recommend asking the mono maintainer or something of the sort. But considering it's not in the repos yet, I don't think we have any devs that care that much.
Ok, after all this discussion on this topic, I think I can manage the moonlight package. I will have a look into the moonlight package. I will open a new thread about this later on the public-dev-mailinglist, if it's necessary to discuss further things. moonlight isn't a big package and it belongs (more or less) to mono, so I can handle it together with mono.
The proper course for things of this nature is to put it in the AUR, and we can garner some need from that.
Cheers, Aaron
Cheers, Daniel
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Amanai <amanai@freenet.de> wrote:
I gotta say, even with all the usual MS distrust that I've been carrying around since MS-DOS 3.x, on the surface Moonlight looks much more promising than the clusterfsck that is Flash. I'd be interested in at least giving it a shot.
--vk
This sounds mutch better,
Funny you say that... Looking over the Moonlight homepage, there is the Microsoft covenant for not sueing who uses it. The first paragraph is very "interesting": http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx Basically, they agree not to sue you (the Moonlight users), just if you use a copy of the implementation only as a plugin and the copy must be made between the period of validity of the covenant. In other words, they can pull the plug on that and can sue everyone they want. I hardly think this is a good thing, even though the pure techonogy is better by now. -- ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto ------------------------------------------- George Burns - "You can't help getting older, but you don't have to get old."
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Denis Alessandro Altoe Falqueto <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny you say that... Looking over the Moonlight homepage, there is the Microsoft covenant for not sueing who uses it. The first paragraph is very "interesting":
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx
Basically, they agree not to sue you (the Moonlight users), just if you use a copy of the implementation only as a plugin and the copy must be made between the period of validity of the covenant. In other words, they can pull the plug on that and can sue everyone they want.
Could be. To my non-lawyer eyes, that looks like nothing, though. I mean, if that agreement didn't exist, would MS really have a case against Novell and the Mono/Moonlight projects?
I hardly think this is a good thing, even though the pure techonogy is better by now.
Well, for one, Moonlight is opensource while Flash quite certainly isn't. That should mean something, no? --vk
stop spamming the list and my inbox: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD thnaks
On Thu, January 22, 2009 12:28 pm, Amanai wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:19:55 -0800, Thomas Bohn <thomas@bohnomat.de> wrote:
On 01:25, Thu 22 Jan 09, Amanai wrote:
The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra?
Currently the SVN version of Moonlight is available via AUR, the package is called "moon-svn."
Thomas
I pick this up. I don't want to build it and upload moonlight for AUR. I don't want to use any packages from AUR.
Archlinux have in Extra Repo's
flashplugin swfdec gnash libflashsupport
it is just missing "moonlight"!
Why not just installing the xpi-file for Firefox directly from the mono project? It works really great. Ok, it's not compiled from source, but it's available for i586 and x86_64. See here: http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/ Daniel
Why not just installing the xpi-file for Firefox directly from the mono project? It works really great. Ok, it's not compiled from source, but it's available for i586 and x86_64.
See here: http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/
Daniel
I am using Opera! Moonlight works really great with Opera too. I just missing it in the Archlinux stable repo's extra. Daniel you maintain Mono, maybe you like to maintain moonlight ;)
Amanai, The question: do you use any packages from community repo? On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Amanai <amanai@freenet.de> wrote:
Why not just installing the xpi-file for Firefox directly from the mono project? It works really great. Ok, it's not compiled from source, but it's available for i586 and x86_64.
See here: http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/
Daniel
I am using Opera! Moonlight works really great with Opera too. I just missing it in the Archlinux stable repo's extra. Daniel you maintain Mono, maybe you like to maintain moonlight ;)
-- Kessia Pinheiro Student at Computer Science - UFBa Trainee with ProCaTI founds - DiSup/CPD - UFBa Arch Linux Trusted User Linux Counter User #389695 - [http://counter.li.org] http://even.archlinux-br.org --- X Fórum Internacional Software Livre - fisl10 24 a 27 de junho de 2009 PUCRS - Porto Alegre - Brasil
Amanai schrieb:
I pick this up. I don't want to build it and upload moonlight for AUR. I don't want to use any packages from AUR.
Then pay someone to do it. Seriously, what kind of attitude is that? I'm not generally against using moonlight, but the usual way for a package inside Arch is through the AUR and high popularity measured by AUR votes. The other way would be that a developer is particularly interested in that package, but apparently none of us has ever seen the need to have moonlight, so you are stuck with the AUR way.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Amanai <amanai@freenet.de> wrote:
The final Version from Moonlight 1.0 released on January 20th. Will this be avaible in the Archlinux repo's extra?
http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/
Moonlight is an open source implementation of Microsoft Silverlight for Unix systems. It's avaible for 32/64 bit!
I gotta say, even with all the usual MS distrust that I've been carrying around since MS-DOS 3.x, on the surface Moonlight looks much more promising than the clusterfsck that is Flash. I'd be interested in at least giving it a shot. --vk
participants (13)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Allan McRae
-
Amanai
-
Daniel Isenmann
-
Daniel Isenmann
-
Denis Alessandro Altoe Falqueto
-
Kessia 'even' Pinheiro
-
RedShift
-
stefan-husmann＠t-online.de
-
Thomas Bohn
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Vesa Kaihlavirta
-
vlad