On 12/13/18 8:46 PM, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote:
There's no positive or negative reply to it, because there's still questions left unanswered.
1. Coderobe's comment on use of sed in iup went disregarded. [1] (It appears the https source was addressed, and Daurnimator commented on the static linking.)
2. We don't know why luarocks would be a "runtime dependency" or why this would be problematic in the first place. [2]
This seems to me to be the most important issue. There are other software languages which don't use Makefiles and pkg-config -- I referenced two of them above, their names are "python" and "ghc". They also come with officially blessed mechanisms to use as a standardized build system, and apparently luarocks serves this role for lua. The luarocks github repository has references to CFLAGS, so it seems to support that already. It does *not* have references to LDFLAGS or CPPFLAGS, not sure what to think of that... it's possible to export CFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS $LDFLAGS" before building I guess? 🤔
3. We don't know why the argument on using pkg-config in LUA should be dismissed. [3]
This is relevant, I believe, given that daurnimator appears to be a member of both the lua and luarocks organizations on github, and presumably has some degree of influence. And I do sort of think that pushing things like this to upstream attention is kind of important from a packaging perspective. If I were a lua user rather than an idle bystander who happened to notice something odd being discussed, I would definitely be aggressively advocating for this upstream.
Considering the questions are relevant regarding the use of bare gcc lines (!) in PKGBUILDs a candidate may want to add to [community], I'd say it's especially important to answer them.
It's especially important to answer them given that the candidate's application stated "the primary goal of improving Arch's Lua packages", but so far we have not been told what that means and can only guess based on what others have observed of his PKGBUILDs. Foxboron, you said your candidate reached out to some people people via email to discuss "the current state of our LUA packages where he wanted to help improve the situation". Was this discussed during that private email conversation? Daurnimator, can you elaborate on your plans? I would be very interested to know if the improvements under consideration extend beyond merely packaging some greater numerical count of lua packages.
(From a more personal perspective, I'm interested in generally competent Lua package maintainers, as I consider to use the language in some of my projects.)
Now it's almost too late with the voting period already started...
Hmm, does anyone know who plans to do this sort of review and ask these questions? Given I at least have more or less retired myself from doing so, and even after our fancy vote about giving us more time for it we still ended up not discussing anything until 21 hours before the discussion period ended, I genuinely have no clue what criteria we're supposed to use when casting our votes. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User