wt., 11.12.2018, 20:45: Alad Wenter via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> napisał(a):
On 12/11/18 8:30 PM, Alad Wenter wrote:
Since the discussion period is about to end without much discussion...
Right now the rate of new applications is very high - about 2 new applications per month. That makes a thorough review difficult.
Considering the positive experiences of the sponsor, it would be a shame to let a voting period pass. That said, I'm not sure we have sufficient information - at present - to proceed with such a voting period in a meaningful manner.
So about Foxboron's question for confirmation: "Say one or two people confirm they think the voting process should be continued after the discussion has ended?" - I don't know.
Alad
Let's try to get the ball rolling by asking some questions.
1. When I look at LUA modules, I see that most are available on "luarocks", which is apparently a package manager for LUA. Can you leverage this to make more LUA modules available on Arch?
2. You have some AUR packages for LUA modules of your own making, yet they hardcode gcc lines instead of using a Makefile. [1] (At least they respect $CFLAGS and $LDFLAGS, I guess.) Why?
3. I have no idea on what some of your more complicated packages do, or why they would require said complexity, e.g. iup. [2] Perhaps you could explain a bit on that regard.
4. Related to the above, there are no current packaging guidelines for LUA packages. [3] Do you plan on starting an effort (possibly with other LUA package maintainers) to remedy this?
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=lua-compat53 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=iup [3]
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines#Additional_guid...
Alad