http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |konrad(a)tylerc.org --- Comment #1 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org&gt; 2009-03-15 01:32:48 --- 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 included here. But that is just my opinion. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2009-03-15 01:59:51 --- Well, RPM Fusion ships other patent-encumbered stuff as well (ffmpeg etc.), so I don't think it makes sense to reject this based on being patent-encumbered. The patents happen to be held by M$, but so are the ClearType patents freetype-freeworld is allegedly infringing. While I hate Silverlight, Moonlight and the Novell-M$ pact, I don't think it's fair to reject this package from RPM Fusion. I'll fill that one in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight As for the package itself, some observations (not a formal or complete review): * 0%{?fedora_version} is not defined in Fedora or RPM Fusion. This is a macro specific to the openSUSE Build Service. Please use 0%{?fedora} instead. Likewise, 0%{rhel_version} should be changed to 0%{?rhel}. (And checks like %if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel_version} are redundant and can be removed altogether, RPM Fusion packages are not going to be built on anything else.) * A general observation related to the above: it is in general not a good idea to reuse specfiles from openSUSE (or Mandriva, for that matter), they have very different packaging conventions from ours. * The "Authors: ..." block should be removed from %description (also an openSUSE-ism?). * Please remove the 0%{suse_version} conditionals. * Why is this overriding __find_provides and __find_requires? * Why are you disabling ffmpeg support? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 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 moonlight-tools is redundant, just use %package tools and %files tools instead. Likewise for the other moonlight-* subpackages. (The purpose of -n is not to prepend the name of the main package to the subpackage's name, it should not be used when the name of the subpackage starts with the main package's name anyway.) * There's a "Requires: libmoon0 == %{version}", the == should be a plain = for consistency (and as written above, it should be moonlight-libs, not libmoon0). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #7 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 dependency on the NEEDSPONSORS tracker bug. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kwizart(a)gmail.com --- Comment #9 from NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-03-15 12:07:48 --- This spec file needs to be adapted for fedora/rpmfusion package names. -libmoon0 subpackage have to be dropped as we won't support multiple binary version for suches library. - conditional macros have to be dropped when not appropriate. Like other distro macro, BR we use by default (like ffmpeg-devel) The best way to have a spec compliant with fedora is to re-create it from scratch using rpmdev-newspec -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 Jochen Schmitt <Jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de --- Comment #11 from Jochen Schmitt <Jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de&gt; 2009-03-16 23:22:43 --- I have found a special issue with this package, which is caused by the fact, that the mon package in fedora was build with --enable-moonlight=no. For getting Silverlight 2.0 compatiblity, we need a subset of the .NET class library, which will be created if you are build mono with --enable-moonlight=yes. the only effect of this configuration switch seems to be the creation of a subset of the mono class library which will get the .NEt version nummber 2.1. So we should take any affort to get build the mono package with --enable-moonlight=yes. The patent issue which was discussed with moonlight are addressed in this package and are not dpending on the --enable-moonlight switch of the mono package, which only create a subset of the whole mono class library. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #14 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2009-03-17 14:40:09 --- (In reply to comment #4) Because this is for Silverlight 2.0 support. Moonlight 1.0 is supporting Silverlight 1.0. 2.* is still on development so I chose to support stable version only. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #17 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 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://olea.org/tmp/moonlight.spec http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/mono/moonlight-1.0.1-2.src.rpm All the binaries are in the same dir than the src. The rpmlint output is attached. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #19 from NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 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/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #21 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 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: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #23 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 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, you'll have to bump Release for the different Fedora releases by hand and it'll be really painful to maintain that, including upgrade paths. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #24 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2009-03-25 03:54:18 --- (In reply to comment #23) I forgot it. Thanks :-) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 David Nielsen <gnomeuser(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gnomeuser(a)gmail.com --- Comment #26 from David Nielsen <gnomeuser(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-04-02 02:07:07 --- (In reply to comment #20) An interesting approach would be finding a way to have this be separate subpackages (moonlight-nopants and moonlight-ffmpeg). For testing purposes one might imagine upstream would like confirmation that both are broken also some users might prefer using the proprietary media pack over ffmpeg (for whatever reason). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #28 from NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #30 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2009-05-02 02:13:49 --- (In reply to comment #28) Not for the momment. As said I'm focusing on Silverlight 1. I'll work on v2 when more mature. See this: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-mono/2009-April/000037.html -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #32 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 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://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/mono/moonlight-libs-1.0.1-6.fc10.i386.rpm http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/mono/moonlight-plugin-1.0.1-6.fc10.i386.rpm http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/mono/moonlight-tools-1.0.1-6.fc10.i386.rpm If you wonder about the recent 1.9.0 prerelease, it's not ready for packaging, confirmed by the developers at gimpnet's #moonlight. Waiting for approval. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #34 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2009-05-13 14:39:08 --- (In reply to comment #33) @david as said at #32 moonlight 1.9.0 is a nightmare to package at this moment since its building depends on 4 sourcecode bases: http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/viewvc/tags/moon/1.9.1/?revision=HEAD The advice from the developers is to wait to some refined way of better manage and package. AFAIK there is not SuSE rpm too. So, I'll wait for 1.9.* until news on this sense. OTOH, I don't know what this 1.0.1 needs more to be rpmfusion aproved :-m -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kwizart(a)gmail.com |rpmfusion-package- | |review(a)rpmfusion.org Status|ASSIGNED |NEW --- Comment #36 from NicolasChauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-05-19 22:59:14 --- Sorry for the late answear, but as you don't plan to write a clean spec file from scratch as I told in #9 , I won't review this either. It can be perfectly fine for another one reviewer to start reviewing the spec as it is. But because I lack time, It makes me particularly difficult to read it. This is just my personal opinion melted with time contingencies. I wish you the best to find another reviewer, and to continue to work on this package as best as you can. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #38 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2009-05-23 10:11:55 --- (In reply to comment #37) Ok, ok, ok. Most of the comments are cosmetic suggestion. So, ok. Done. Can I have the package finally approved? http://olea.org/tmp/moonlight.spec http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/repoview/moonlight.html -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |oget.fedora(a)gmail.com --- Comment #40 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-05-31 18:30:51 --- Here are some preliminary notes. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. ! The moonlight in Fedora 11 is compiled with --enable-moonlight=yes. So you may want to enable the "with_managed" for Fedora > 11. When I changed with_managed to yes, I got Bad build req: No Package Found for rsvg2-sharp. Exiting. on Fedora 11. What's wrong? * The %doc for all subpackages are the same, which results in duplicate files. Please list those files in the appropriate package only. * Please fix the rpmlints moonlight-tools.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/mopen1 ['/usr/lib64'] moonlight-plugin.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/moon/plugin/libmoonplugin.so ['/usr/lib64'] moonlight.src: E: invalid-spec-name * Please remove the src/zip, cairo and pixman directories in %prep. We don't need them, we don't want them. You should use Fedora's minizip instead of src/zip * Additionally the files and directories ./plugin/TODO: ASCII English text ./plugin/ChangeLog: ASCII English text ./plugin/firefox/ff2/ChangeLog: ASCII English text ./plugin/firefox/ChangeLog: ASCII English text ./plugin/firefox/ff3/ChangeLog: ASCII English text ./plugin/samples/: directory ./LICENSE: ASCII English text ./tools/mxap/ChangeLog: ASCII English text ./tools/mopen/ChangeLog: ASCII English text ./tools/xaml2html/ChangeLog: ASCII English text ./tools/README: ASCII English text ./NOTES: ASCII English text ./gtk/docs/: directory ./gtk/ChangeLog: ASCII English text ./examples/desklet/glassyclock/ChangeLog: ASCII text ./examples/desklet/cpumonitor/ChangeLog: ASCII text ./examples/desklet/glassyslides/ChangeLog: ASCII text ./examples/desklet/simpleclock/ChangeLog: ASCII text ./examples/desklet/glassymonitor/ChangeLog: ASCII English text ./examples/desklet/calculator/ChangeLog: ASCII English text ./examples/desklet/README: ASCII English text should probably go to appropriate %docs. ? Any reason why you are not touching/packaging the perf/ directory? ? What are those binary .pub and .snk files? ? Why is the package named "moonlight" and not just "moon"? What do other distros do? * The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines. * The file LICENSE indicates different licenses for different parts. Please use the appropriate license(s) for each package * Source should be given in full URL, with appropriate macros. * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Be careful about directory ownerships. For instance the tools package has %{_libdir}/moon/mopen.exe* where the directory %{_libdir}/moon/ is owned by the plugin package. But the tools package does not require the plugin package, leaving %{_libdir}/moon/ unowned in case the plugin package is not installed. There are many other similar issues. Please check every file one by one. Please address the above issues so we can proceed with the review. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #42 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2009-06-29 13:16:32 --- Brrrrrr, sorry my horrible English in the last comment... I write faster than I can think about. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #44 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-08-04 19:59:36 --- I'd really like to see this review finished... (In reply to comment #43) Ismael, I agree with Oget on this; it not worth it most of the time; License files are an exception if different licenses are used for different components -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #46 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2009-08-27 14:44:46 --- Updated: http://olea.org/tmp/moonlight.spec http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/mono/moonlight-1.0.1-10.src.rpm * Wed Aug 26 2009 Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 1.0.1-10 - removed managed code references and subpackages - cosmetic changes - explicit license for tools subpackage: MIT - explicit license for plugin and libs subpackags: LGPL2 - explicit license for source packag: LGPL2 and MIT and MS-PL - missing LICENSE file -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #48 from David Nielsen <gnomeuser(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 support SL2 content at all which still is the majority of all SL content out there. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #50 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 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 on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #52 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 have a look at it within two weeks. But no promises. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #54 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2010-05-13 11:51:30 --- Sadly I don't have the time no more to work on it. I left the token for any volunteer. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #56 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2011-09-29 23:55:22 --- @Richard: go with it, please. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #58 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2011-09-30 09:13:36 --- @Richard: consider to join http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-packagers-list It was the reference point at least until the Novell-alypse :-) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #60 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 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. We'll see what happens. Richard -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 --- Comment #62 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2011-10-01 19:38:06 --- Jo Shields is a true mono packaging expert, so its advices are highly recommended. As far I remember, mono sources in moonlight compiling has nothing to do with mono system (maybe an run time compiler incompatibility, hope no!). I agree it seems contraintuitive but I think it's the only viable alternative. About adding external sources, I think it's not problematic (it wasn't in the past when my spec got reviewed), particularly bc they are 100% oss. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436 Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #64 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2011-10-07 15:00:36 --- Closing this bc Moonlight seems to be a product in a dead end. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.