FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-04-2008, 06:29 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Lua

I see a few Lua packages have appeared in the review queue today.

I checked out the specs and they all seem very clean. There are a few
issues (/usr/lib/lua seems to be unowned in rawhide, although
/usr/lib/lua/5.1 is owned by the lua package), the luasql packages
leave /usr/lib/lua/5.1/luasql unowned, etc.) but these seem to be
minor packaging issues.

So, we need to decide whether we want to just go ahead with these
packages, or whether we want to do the "wait for guidelines" game
again. Is anyone interesting in writing some guidleines? It seems
like they'd be pretty tiny. Hans, the main Lua package seems to be
yours; are you interested in putting something together?

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 04-04-2008, 06:34 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Lua

On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 13:29 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I see a few Lua packages have appeared in the review queue today.
>
> I checked out the specs and they all seem very clean. There are a few
> issues (/usr/lib/lua seems to be unowned in rawhide, although
> /usr/lib/lua/5.1 is owned by the lua package), the luasql packages
> leave /usr/lib/lua/5.1/luasql unowned, etc.) but these seem to be
> minor packaging issues.
>
> So, we need to decide whether we want to just go ahead with these
> packages, or whether we want to do the "wait for guidelines" game
> again. Is anyone interesting in writing some guidleines? It seems
> like they'd be pretty tiny. Hans, the main Lua package seems to be
> yours; are you interested in putting something together?

I don't see a reason for a hold here. I would love to see Hans (or
someone qualified) whip up some guidelines.

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 04-04-2008, 06:41 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Lua

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 13:29 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

I see a few Lua packages have appeared in the review queue today.

I checked out the specs and they all seem very clean. There are a few
issues (/usr/lib/lua seems to be unowned in rawhide, although
/usr/lib/lua/5.1 is owned by the lua package), the luasql packages
leave /usr/lib/lua/5.1/luasql unowned, etc.) but these seem to be
minor packaging issues.

So, we need to decide whether we want to just go ahead with these
packages, or whether we want to do the "wait for guidelines" game
again. Is anyone interesting in writing some guidleines? It seems
like they'd be pretty tiny. Hans, the main Lua package seems to be
yours; are you interested in putting something together?


I don't see a reason for a hold here. I would love to see Hans (or
someone qualified) whip up some guidelines.


+1

-Toshio

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 04-04-2008, 09:12 PM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Lua

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 13:29 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

I see a few Lua packages have appeared in the review queue today.

I checked out the specs and they all seem very clean. There are a few
issues (/usr/lib/lua seems to be unowned in rawhide, although
/usr/lib/lua/5.1 is owned by the lua package), the luasql packages
leave /usr/lib/lua/5.1/luasql unowned, etc.) but these seem to be
minor packaging issues.

So, we need to decide whether we want to just go ahead with these
packages, or whether we want to do the "wait for guidelines" game
again. Is anyone interesting in writing some guidleines? It seems
like they'd be pretty tiny. Hans, the main Lua package seems to be
yours; are you interested in putting something together?


I don't see a reason for a hold here. I would love to see Hans (or
someone qualified) whip up some guidelines.



I also don't see a reason for a hold. As for me being the lua maintainer, thats
only because it got orphaned and its used in a few games I maintain. My lua
knowledge is limited. So lets first see how these new packages go, and if there
is a need for lua specific guidelines at all.


Regards,

Hans

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 04-04-2008, 09:24 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Lua

>>>>> "HdG" == Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> writes:

HdG> I also don't see a reason for a hold. As for me being the lua
HdG> maintainer, thats only because it got orphaned and its used in a
HdG> few games I maintain. My lua knowledge is limited.

No problem. Do you want me to file a bug about the unowned
/usr/lib/lua?

HdG> So lets first see how these new packages go, and if there is a
HdG> need for lua specific guidelines at all.

OK, I'll start reviewing them.

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 04-05-2008, 07:24 AM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Lua

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

No problem. Do you want me to file a bug about the unowned
/usr/lib/lua?



Not necessary, this is currently building for rawhide:
* Sat Apr 5 2008 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> 5.1.3-4
- Not only own $libdir/lua/5.1 and $datadir/lua/5.1 but also $libdir/lua
and $datadir/lua for proper removal of these dirs upon lua removal

Regards,

Hans

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 04-05-2008, 04:00 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Lua

>>>>> "HdG" == Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl> writes:

HdG> Not necessary, this is currently building for rawhide:

Thanks. I've reviewed those lua package submissions which were
reviewable and so far everything was reasonably clean but I think
every one of them had issues with compiler flags. It seems that the
common build process is not amenable to passing your own CFLAGS.
Annoying, but something that is pretty easy to handle.

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 04-06-2008, 08:16 PM
"Michel Salim"
 
Default Lua

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu> wrote:
> I see a few Lua packages have appeared in the review queue today.
>
> I checked out the specs and they all seem very clean. There are a few
> issues (/usr/lib/lua seems to be unowned in rawhide, although
> /usr/lib/lua/5.1 is owned by the lua package), the luasql packages
> leave /usr/lib/lua/5.1/luasql unowned, etc.) but these seem to be
> minor packaging issues.
>
> So, we need to decide whether we want to just go ahead with these
> packages, or whether we want to do the "wait for guidelines" game
> again. Is anyone interesting in writing some guidleines? It seems
> like they'd be pretty tiny. Hans, the main Lua package seems to be
> yours; are you interested in putting something together?
>

Lua SIG, anyone? It's a potentially more exciting language than Python
and Ruby: a properly functional scripting language!

--
Michel Salim
http://hircus.jaiku.com/

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 04-16-2008, 10:02 PM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default Lua

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Hans de Goede wrote:


Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 13:29 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

I see a few Lua packages have appeared in the review queue today.

I checked out the specs and they all seem very clean. There are a few
issues (/usr/lib/lua seems to be unowned in rawhide, although
/usr/lib/lua/5.1 is owned by the lua package), the luasql packages
leave /usr/lib/lua/5.1/luasql unowned, etc.) but these seem to be
minor packaging issues.

So, we need to decide whether we want to just go ahead with these
packages, or whether we want to do the "wait for guidelines" game
again. Is anyone interesting in writing some guidleines? It seems
like they'd be pretty tiny. Hans, the main Lua package seems to be
yours; are you interested in putting something together?


I don't see a reason for a hold here. I would love to see Hans (or
someone qualified) whip up some guidelines.



I also don't see a reason for a hold. As for me being the lua maintainer,
thats only because it got orphaned and its used in a few games I maintain. My
lua knowledge is limited. So lets first see how these new packages go, and if
there is a need for lua specific guidelines at all.


Only noticed this now, duh...

I briefly maintained Lua in fedora.us and would be happy to help with it
if you want. Both rpm and apt-rpm have and use an embedded Lua interpreter
to varying degrees so I've both interest and some experience in it.


- Panu -

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 04-17-2008, 08:41 AM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Lua

Panu Matilainen wrote:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Hans de Goede wrote:


Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 13:29 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

I see a few Lua packages have appeared in the review queue today.

I checked out the specs and they all seem very clean. There are a few
issues (/usr/lib/lua seems to be unowned in rawhide, although
/usr/lib/lua/5.1 is owned by the lua package), the luasql packages
leave /usr/lib/lua/5.1/luasql unowned, etc.) but these seem to be
minor packaging issues.

So, we need to decide whether we want to just go ahead with these
packages, or whether we want to do the "wait for guidelines" game
again. Is anyone interesting in writing some guidleines? It seems
like they'd be pretty tiny. Hans, the main Lua package seems to be
yours; are you interested in putting something together?


I don't see a reason for a hold here. I would love to see Hans (or
someone qualified) whip up some guidelines.



I also don't see a reason for a hold. As for me being the lua
maintainer, thats only because it got orphaned and its used in a few
games I maintain. My lua knowledge is limited. So lets first see how
these new packages go, and if there is a need for lua specific
guidelines at all.


Only noticed this now, duh...

I briefly maintained Lua in fedora.us and would be happy to help with it
if you want. Both rpm and apt-rpm have and use an embedded Lua
interpreter to varying degrees so I've both interest and some experience
in it.




I've just "given away" a whole bunch of packages to other to lighten my load a
bit including lua, lua is now in the capable hands of Tim Niemueller (timn),
I'm sure he will welcome co-maintainers, so if you want to comaintain lua you
should ask him.


Regards,

Hans

p.s.

I don't see rpm requiring lua in any way, perhaps it would be better for rpm to
be build against the system version of lua instead of using its own private copy?



--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org