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

...

...

...

...

"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<

...

...

...

...

"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<

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?