[aur-general] TU application: Daurnimator

[Daurnimator]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 17:23, Eli Schwartz <eschwartz at archlinux.org> wrote:>
> I'm finding it very hard to imagine why c89, game developers,
> microcontroller users, or people who care about performance would be at
> all opposed to distributing an inert text file. I guess Windows users
> might feel like it is a waste, but it's still hardly controversial.
>
> Can you clarify what any of this has to do with anything? Why would
> anyone feel hurt by this? How does this answer my observation that it's
> something to push upstream?

It's a fight against a long standing effort to reduce the number of
files in the release tarball.
You would have seen e.g.
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2008-09/msg00186.html in my earlier
links

> > By being a trusted user I hope that it adds substance behind some
> > upstream reform, where the response has sometimes been "we will only
> > change this if a majority of distros agree".
>
> I'm sure that, Trusted User or not, you can point to any number of
> cross-distro policies to agree to. And you hardly need to be a Trusted
> User to write good lua packaging documentation and point to how
> wonderful having standard pkg-config files are.

Previous efforts (not by myself) have failed because distro packagers
have not enacted proposed changes.
Lua community members have come up with suggestions and schemes, but
unless they are implemented by a distro then they are forgotten.
Across most distributions, lua maintainers seem to be absentee.

> I'm afraid I simply don't see how this has any bearing on anything. If
> the lua developers claim that a majority of distros fail to agree that
> pkg-config files describing the lua distribution are a good thing, then
> they're simply arguing for the sake of arguing, and no proofs will ever
> be enough for them.
>
> I really, really hope this application is not *just* about being able to
> wave your credentials as a TU at the lua developers. But so far you've
> failed to specify what your other tangible goals are. :(

As I stated in my application, I planned my initial tasks as maintaining
  - lua-expat
  - lua-filesystem
  - luajit
  - luarocks

luarocks in particular has been sitting out of date and unmaintained for a while
https://github.com/luarocks/luarocks/issues/946 is what prompted me to
resume my stalled TU application.

> My takeaway from this is that you have not come into your application
> with any answer at all, and intend to begin work only after being
> elected. A pity, since PKGBUILD standards are a hobby of mine and I
> would have liked to take a look at something which is actually there to
> be looked at, at least as a beginning.
>
... snip ...
>
> Go-getters are awesome.
>

The initial email mentioned was aiming to come to an agreement about
version suffixes and paths for lua packages across distros
(see the earlier linked spreadsheet for the inconsistencies
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z_oM8LgwyGAsfof6_FbbBJlY-wCA6DfadwZb0N5bwwI/edit#gid=0
)
I would not be unable to immediately fix this as a TU because the lua
package is in extra.


I was told that there were no TUs with much Lua experience, and that
it would be nice to have a trusted user to review Lua changes/packages
with knowledge and care of the Lua community.
This would reduce the phenomenon of the "Absentee business owner"