headers
Paul | 18 Aug 21:14

moonlight source in mono-2.0

Hi,

As part of the regular review of updated packages within fedora, we've
found that the current 2.0 preview has the ability to build the
moonlight assemblies (or not depending on the configure option).

Moonlight is a forbidden item in Fedora, so I've built it with the
configure script saying no thanks to moonlight. However, if the code is
in the mono tarballs, it has to be removed when it's packaged up.

Looking at the source, I can't see anything glaringly obvious, but from
memory, its smcs, System.Net and anything 2.1 in gac. Can someone
confirm this?

Thanks

TTFN

Paul
--

-- 
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!

_______________________________________________
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list <at> lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jeffrey Stedfast | 18 Aug 21:46
Favicon

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0

The 2.1 assemblies are just stripped-down 2.0 assemblies and smcs is
just gmcs built to target 2.1

None of the Silverlight classes are included inside Mono, so there
shouldn't need to be any source-code removal at all.

Also... why would the source code need to be removed at all in the
source packages anyway? I'm totally lost.

Jeff

On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 20:15 +0100, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As part of the regular review of updated packages within fedora, we've
> found that the current 2.0 preview has the ability to build the
> moonlight assemblies (or not depending on the configure option).
> 
> Moonlight is a forbidden item in Fedora, so I've built it with the
> configure script saying no thanks to moonlight. However, if the code is
> in the mono tarballs, it has to be removed when it's packaged up.
> 
> Looking at the source, I can't see anything glaringly obvious, but from
> memory, its smcs, System.Net and anything 2.1 in gac. Can someone
> confirm this?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> TTFN
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Paul | 19 Aug 00:02

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0

Hi,

> Also... why would the source code need to be removed at all in the
> source packages anyway? I'm totally lost.

Moonlight is a forbidden package by fedora (it is considered too dodgy
due to the unholy pact between Novell and the borg - or something like
that). This means that they will neither ship the source or the built
binaries.

Other examples : MP3, mpeg2 and anything else, which under US law, can
land them in hot water.

For that reason, anything to do with moonlight has to be removed from
the sourceball, therefore the code to build smcs has to go.

TTFN

Paul
--

-- 
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!

_______________________________________________
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list <at> lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jeffrey Stedfast | 19 Aug 00:18
Favicon

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0


On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 23:02 +0100, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > Also... why would the source code need to be removed at all in the
> > source packages anyway? I'm totally lost.
> 
> Moonlight is a forbidden package by fedora (it is considered too dodgy
> due to the unholy pact between Novell and the borg - or something like
> that). This means that they will neither ship the source or the built
> binaries.
> 
> Other examples : MP3, mpeg2 and anything else, which under US law, can
> land them in hot water.
> 
> For that reason, anything to do with moonlight has to be removed from
> the sourceball, therefore the code to build smcs has to go.

but the source to smcs is exactly the same as that of gmcs!?!?

As Yoda might say: "No sense does this logic make."

> 
> TTFN
> 
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list <at> lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Paul | 19 Aug 00:37

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0

Hi,

> > For that reason, anything to do with moonlight has to be removed from
> > the sourceball, therefore the code to build smcs has to go.
> 
> but the source to smcs is exactly the same as that of gmcs!?!?
> 
> As Yoda might say: "No sense does this logic make."

In that case, what does smcs really do that gmcs doesn't other than
target the moonlight bits and pieces? Fedora are really picky over
things, so I play it safe.

Now, onto more pressing matters. How the hell do I get XIM to play
nicely...

TTFN

Paul
--

-- 
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!

_______________________________________________
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list <at> lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jeffrey Stedfast | 19 Aug 01:58
Favicon

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0

Forgot to add that IMHO, ideally you should package (even if you don't
ship by default) the 2.1 assemblies (and smcs?) so that it is easier for
Fedora's end-users to get a working Moonlight should they choose to
install it.

W/o the 2.1 assemblies packaged, they would have to build their own
Mono.

Since Fedora deems Mono legally safe, there's no reason for Fedora not
to at least package the 2.1 assemblies as there is absolutely nothing
new in the code.

Jeff

On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 23:37 +0100, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > For that reason, anything to do with moonlight has to be removed from
> > > the sourceball, therefore the code to build smcs has to go.
> > 
> > but the source to smcs is exactly the same as that of gmcs!?!?
> > 
> > As Yoda might say: "No sense does this logic make."
> 
> In that case, what does smcs really do that gmcs doesn't other than
> target the moonlight bits and pieces? Fedora are really picky over
> things, so I play it safe.
> 
> Now, onto more pressing matters. How the hell do I get XIM to play
> nicely...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Paul | 19 Aug 02:07

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0

Hi,

> Since Fedora deems Mono legally safe, there's no reason for Fedora not
> to at least package the 2.1 assemblies as there is absolutely nothing
> new in the code.

Mono is fine and is considered fine by Fedora bods. Moonlight is not.
It's too close to the knuckle due to the unholy pact. As it's not
allowed, I can't package them.

TTFN

Paul
--

-- 
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!

_______________________________________________
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list <at> lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Geoff Norton | 19 Aug 02:12
Favicon

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 01:07 +0100, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > Since Fedora deems Mono legally safe, there's no reason for Fedora not
> > to at least package the 2.1 assemblies as there is absolutely nothing
> > new in the code.
> 
> Mono is fine and is considered fine by Fedora bods. Moonlight is not.
> It's too close to the knuckle due to the unholy pact. As it's not
> allowed, I can't package them.

Please keep comments like this off our lists.  They don't accomplish
anything, nor contribute anything to the development of mono.

-g
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Paul | 19 Aug 02:31

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0

Hi,

> > Mono is fine and is considered fine by Fedora bods. Moonlight is not.
> > It's too close to the knuckle due to the unholy pact. As it's not
> > allowed, I can't package them.
> 
> Please keep comments like this off our lists.  They don't accomplish
> anything, nor contribute anything to the development of mono.

Okay, let me rephrase that...

(from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight)

"Moonlight 

There are serious concerns about Moonlight, due to Microsoft and
Novell's public statements around its inclusion in their "covenant". In
addition to that Groklaw has posted a FAQ from Software Freedom Law
Center (SFLC) on the issues with this patent "covenant". Accordingly,
this technology (with, or without codecs), is considered too risky, and
is not acceptable for inclusion in Fedora. 

Also refer: 
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx 
http://blogs.cnet.com/5530-13505_1-0-10.html?forumID=166&messageID=2490312&threadID=228078
"

That's the official line, my wording is more or less a paraphrasing of
the above.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Geoff Norton | 19 Aug 02:10
Favicon

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0

Jeff,

On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 19:58 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> Forgot to add that IMHO, ideally you should package (even if you don't
> ship by default) the 2.1 assemblies (and smcs?) so that it is easier for
> Fedora's end-users to get a working Moonlight should they choose to
> install it.

> W/o the 2.1 assemblies packaged, they would have to build their own
> Mono.
> 

I'm fairly certain the plan here is for us to provide a .xpi that would
run on a mono-less machine for SL2.  In other words we're going to
bundle the runtime bits we need in the .xpi.

Of course this doesn't detract from the fact that the "Moonlight" pieces
inside Mono are completely non-existent except for a few dlls that are a
subset without any changes of some other dlls.

All of the moonlight specific code is in the Moon repository.  Of course
if Fedora has decided on this inane stance, they're going to miss out on
all the Gtk.Moonlight awesomeness that is forthcoming.

-g
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jeffrey Stedfast | 19 Aug 02:28
Favicon

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0

On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 20:10 -0400, Geoff Norton wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 19:58 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > Forgot to add that IMHO, ideally you should package (even if you don't
> > ship by default) the 2.1 assemblies (and smcs?) so that it is easier for
> > Fedora's end-users to get a working Moonlight should they choose to
> > install it.
> 
> > W/o the 2.1 assemblies packaged, they would have to build their own
> > Mono.
> > 
> 
> I'm fairly certain the plan here is for us to provide a .xpi that would
> run on a mono-less machine for SL2.  In other words we're going to
> bundle the runtime bits we need in the .xpi.

Aha, then disregard my previous mail ;-)

Jeff
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jeffrey Stedfast | 19 Aug 01:54
Favicon

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0

On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 23:37 +0100, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > For that reason, anything to do with moonlight has to be removed from
> > > the sourceball, therefore the code to build smcs has to go.
> > 
> > but the source to smcs is exactly the same as that of gmcs!?!?
> > 
> > As Yoda might say: "No sense does this logic make."
> 
> In that case, what does smcs really do that gmcs doesn't other than
> target the moonlight bits and pieces?

Nothing. That's the entire difference.

The difference between the 2.0 and the 2.1 assemblies is that the 2.1
assemblies are only a small subset of the 2.0 assemblies (wouldn't want
Silverlight apps accessing the filesystem, or accessing many of the
other System classes due to security concerns, so the 2.1 assemblies
simply strip all of that out).

>  Fedora are really picky over
> things, so I play it safe.
> 
> Now, onto more pressing matters. How the hell do I get XIM to play
> nicely...
> 
> TTFN
> 
> Paul
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rolf Bjarne Kvinge | 19 Aug 00:43
Favicon

Re: moonlight source in mono-2.0


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mono-devel-list-bounces <at> lists.ximian.com [mailto:mono-devel-list-
> bounces <at> lists.ximian.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Sent: martes, 19 de agosto de 2008 0:03
> To: mono-devel
> Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] moonlight source in mono-2.0
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > Also... why would the source code need to be removed at all in the
> > source packages anyway? I'm totally lost.
> 
> Moonlight is a forbidden package by fedora (it is considered too dodgy
> due to the unholy pact between Novell and the borg - or something like
> that). This means that they will neither ship the source or the built
> binaries.
> 
> Other examples : MP3, mpeg2 and anything else, which under US law, can
> land them in hot water.
> 
> For that reason, anything to do with moonlight has to be removed from
> the sourceball, therefore the code to build smcs has to go.

If you apply that logic then you'd have to remove any compiler which compiles forbidden packages. 

That would leave the distro quite unusable I think.

Rolf
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane