On 12/11/18 6:19 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
>> If lua does not officially compile a C++ version, it is the job of
>> Debian to both provide their own pkg-config files, and modify lua to
>> build using C++.
>
> Lua supports either compiling with longjmp or C++ based exceptions.
> See "Error-recovery
. On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 14:44, Eli Schwartz via aur-general
wrote:
> Do you mean they removed a pc rather than an echo target?
Yes, sorry for confusion.
> If lua does not officially compile a C++ version, it is the job of
> Debian to both provide their own pkg-config files, and modify lua to
>
On 12/11/18 4:21 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 13:18, Eli Schwartz via aur-general
> wrote:
>> Lua *does* provide a "make pc" target.
>
> Only lua 5.1 does, it was removed in the lua 5.2 release. Due to
> disagreements between debian and fedora lua package maintainers about
>
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 13:28, Eli Schwartz via aur-general
wrote:
> Can you point me to a bug report or pull request or mailing list
> discussion or other form of discussion in the lua community where the
> topic of pkg-config has been previously discussed and rejected as too
> political? Because
On 12/11/18 3:51 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
> I think the better solution is to try and get different distros to use
> the same formats and try and unify it all with e.g. pkg-config.
> However that's a long and political process.
lua *has* a pkg-config file already, it just exists as documentation in
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 13:18, Eli Schwartz via aur-general
wrote:
> Lua *does* provide a "make pc" target.
Only lua 5.1 does, it was removed in the lua 5.2 release. Due to
disagreements between debian and fedora lua package maintainers about
what it should contain.
> Admittedly, this target is
On 12/11/18 3:00 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 11:45, Alad Wenter via aur-general
> wrote:
>> 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 12/11/18 3:10 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 12:04, Robin Broda via aur-general
> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/18 9:00 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 11:45, Alad Wenter via aur-general
>>> wrote:
2. You have some AUR packages for LUA modules of your own
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 12:47, Ivy Foster via aur-general
wrote:
> Yikes!
>
> One ugly but workable solution could be to conditionally set variables
> in a Makefile. For instance:
>
> ifeq ($(OS),Windows_NT) # for Windows versions >= NT
> LUA :=
On 11 Dec 2018, at 12:10 pm -0800, Daurnimator wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 12:04, Robin Broda via aur-general
> wrote:
> > On 12/11/18 9:00 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 11:45, Alad Wenter via aur-general
> > > wrote:
> > >> 2. You have some AUR packages for LUA
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 12:25, Ivy Foster via aur-general
wrote:
> Looking at arcan, why do you break it up into so many different
> sub-packages? I understand that they provide different tools, but
> typically Arch just packages toolsuites together unless there's a
> compelling reason to separate
Thanks for the application, Daurnimator!
Looking at arcan, why do you break it up into so many different
sub-packages? I understand that they provide different tools, but
typically Arch just packages toolsuites together unless there's a
compelling reason to separate some of them.
Also, libarena
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 12:04, Robin Broda via aur-general
wrote:
>
> On 12/11/18 9:00 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 11:45, Alad Wenter via aur-general
> > wrote:
> >> 2. You have some AUR packages for LUA modules of your own making, yet
> >> they hardcode gcc lines instead of
On 12/11/18 9:00 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 11:45, Alad Wenter via aur-general
> wrote:
>> 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
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 11:45, Alad Wenter via aur-general
wrote:
> 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?
Note that it's "Lua" not LUA.
I'd
On 12/11/18 8:45 PM, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote:
> 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
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
On 12/11/18 12:38 PM, Storm Dragon via aur-general wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:21:19PM -0500, AUR General wrote:
Is taholafs not in the AUR? There are no AUR packages which depend on
magic-wormhole, and I cannot find anything when searching for
"taholafs".
>
> I
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
Howdy,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:21:19PM -0500, AUR General wrote:
Is taholafs not in the AUR? There are no AUR packages which depend on
magic-wormhole, and I cannot find anything when searching for "taholafs".
I guess it would be helpful if I had spelled the package name correctly. :) It
20 matches
Mail list logo
