On 12/21/18 5:03 AM, Morten Linderud via aur-general wrote:
> Yo!
>
> The vote is over and the results are inn!
>
> Yes: 22
> No: 15
> Abstain: 12
> Participation:89.09%
>
> Congratulations! I have updated the AUR account.
>
> Please follow the TODO and
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 21:03, Morten Linderud via aur-general
wrote:
>
> Yo!
>
> The vote is over and the results are inn!
>
> Yes: 22
> No: 15
> Abstain: 12
> Participation:89.09%
>
> Congratulations! I have updated the AUR account.
>
> Please follow the
Yo!
The vote is over and the results are inn!
Yes: 22
No: 15
Abstain: 12
Participation:89.09%
Congratulations! I have updated the AUR account.
Please follow the TODO and poke me with any questions you have :)
On 12/17/18 1:23 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski via aur-general wrote:
> And I stand by my opinion. It's ridiculous to think that one person,
> even if member of GitHub organization (which may or may not mean
> anything), can single-handedly affect decision of either project. It's
> difficult even here
Em dezembro 17, 2018 5:23 Bartłomiej Piotrowski via aur-general escreveu:
I fail to understand how discussion got where it is now. Is sponsorship
process about packaging quality and candidate in general or pushing some
agenda through projects that applicant is helping with?
I don't believe I
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
> >
On 17/12/2018 08.23, Bartłomiej Piotrowski via aur-general wrote:
> can single-handedly affect decision of either project
s/either/entire/
I haven't had my coffee yet.
On 17/12/2018 07.53, Daurnimator wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 17:23, Eli Schwartz 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
On 12/16/18 11:27 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
> It does have LIBFLAG which I believe should be contain LDFLAGS.
> See https://github.com/luarocks/luarocks/issues/429
I don't know what this means. Does it or doesn't it? Shall I assume that
its being open for several years with no activity at all means
Sorry for delayed reply, I've been travelling.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 14:44, Eli Schwartz via aur-general
wrote:
> The luarocks github repository has references to CFLAGS, so it seems to
> support that already. It does *not* have references to LDFLAGS or
> CPPFLAGS, not sure what to think of
On 12/13/18 8:46 PM, Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote:
> There's no positive or negative reply to it, because there's still
> questions left unanswered.
>
> 1. Coderobe's comment on use of sed in iup went disregarded. [1] (It
> appears the https source was addressed, and Daurnimator commented on
There's no positive or negative reply to it, because there's still
questions left unanswered.
1. Coderobe's comment on use of sed in iup went disregarded. [1] (It
appears the https source was addressed, and Daurnimator commented on the
static linking.)
2. We don't know why luarocks would be a
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 04:20:22PM +0100, Morten Linderud via aur-general wrote:
> As of the recent discussions; We could try the "co-sponsorship" before the
> voting process? Say one or two people confirm they think the voting process
> should be continued after the discussion has ended?
There
. 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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 02:20, Morten Linderud via aur-general wrote:
> I confirm my sponsorship of Daurnimator!
Thank you for sponsoring!
Also, I was just informed that a TU application should contain links :D
Me:
AUR profile:
On 11/29/18 at 02:03am, Daurnimator wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm applying to be a Trusted User; Foxboron has kindly sponsored me and has
> been mentoring me on the specifics over the last couple of months.
>
> I've been using Arch since 2010,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:03:33AM +1100, Daurnimator wrote:
> I'm applying to be a Trusted User; Foxboron has kindly sponsored me and has
> been mentoring me on the specifics over the last couple of months.
Yo!
I confirm my sponsorship of Daurnimator!
Because of the recent discussion regarding
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi all,
I'm applying to be a Trusted User; Foxboron has kindly sponsored me and has
been mentoring me on the specifics over the last couple of months.
I've been using Arch since 2010, having been present in #archlinux almost the
whole time! Before
35 matches
Mail list logo
