| Message ID | 20170223170047.24417-14-arnout@mind.be |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
Hello, On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:00:35 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) wrote: > We have decided that lua packages should have a name that starts with > lua (like is the case for python and perl). However, we're not going to > rename all the existing lua packages that don't start with lua. This > makes it unclear for people adding packages how they should name the > package, so add a comment to package/Config.in to explain it. Should we require "lua" as a prefix or "lua-" ? For Perl and Python, we use "perl-" and "python-" respectively. We currently have 10 packages that start with "lua-", and 12 that start with just "lua". Best regards, Thomas
On 02-03-17 22:50, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:00:35 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle > (Essensium/Mind) wrote: >> We have decided that lua packages should have a name that starts with >> lua (like is the case for python and perl). However, we're not going to >> rename all the existing lua packages that don't start with lua. This >> makes it unclear for people adding packages how they should name the >> package, so add a comment to package/Config.in to explain it. > > Should we require "lua" as a prefix or "lua-" ? For Perl and Python, we > use "perl-" and "python-" respectively. > > We currently have 10 packages that start with "lua-", and 12 that start > with just "lua". The problem is that we want to use upstream names. The upstream name of luaposix is luaposix. We certainly don't want to change that into lua-posix, and making it lua-luaposix would be weird as well. Note that Debian does call it lua-posix. So to use the lua-posix package, you have to do 'require "luaposix"', which makes little sense IMHO. For me, the important thing is that I can see in the package directory which packages are lua-related. I'm not really bothered with seeing a mix of lua-foo and luabar. Perl is different because module names (almost?) never start with Perl. Python is different because package names sometimes are like pyfoo, but never python-foo, and we have indeed chosen to make it python-pyfoo. If people think it would be better for consistency to have lua-luafoo, I can live with that (just 3 letters more). But do keep in mind that we have already forsaken consistency because of the historical discrepancy. Regards, Arnout
Hello, On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 23:19:50 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > The problem is that we want to use upstream names. The upstream name of > luaposix is luaposix. We certainly don't want to change that into lua-posix, and > making it lua-luaposix would be weird as well. Note that Debian does call it > lua-posix. So to use the lua-posix package, you have to do 'require "luaposix"', > which makes little sense IMHO. > > For me, the important thing is that I can see in the package directory which > packages are lua-related. I'm not really bothered with seeing a mix of lua-foo > and luabar. > > Perl is different because module names (almost?) never start with Perl. Python > is different because package names sometimes are like pyfoo, but never > python-foo, and we have indeed chosen to make it python-pyfoo. > > If people think it would be better for consistency to have lua-luafoo, I can > live with that (just 3 letters more). But do keep in mind that we have already > forsaken consistency because of the historical discrepancy. Fair enough, but then I'd like that the rule be: * If the upstream package name is luafoo, then it should be luafoo in Buildroot. * If the upstream package name is foo, then it should be lua-foo in Buildroot. Does that sound OK? Thomas
On 02-03-17 23:22, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 23:19:50 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > >> The problem is that we want to use upstream names. The upstream name of >> luaposix is luaposix. We certainly don't want to change that into lua-posix, and >> making it lua-luaposix would be weird as well. Note that Debian does call it >> lua-posix. So to use the lua-posix package, you have to do 'require "luaposix"', >> which makes little sense IMHO. >> >> For me, the important thing is that I can see in the package directory which >> packages are lua-related. I'm not really bothered with seeing a mix of lua-foo >> and luabar. >> >> Perl is different because module names (almost?) never start with Perl. Python >> is different because package names sometimes are like pyfoo, but never >> python-foo, and we have indeed chosen to make it python-pyfoo. >> >> If people think it would be better for consistency to have lua-luafoo, I can >> live with that (just 3 letters more). But do keep in mind that we have already >> forsaken consistency because of the historical discrepancy. > > Fair enough, but then I'd like that the rule be: > > * If the upstream package name is luafoo, then it should be luafoo in > Buildroot. > > * If the upstream package name is foo, then it should be lua-foo in > Buildroot. > > Does that sound OK? That's exactly what I meant. Should I update the Config.in? Regards, Arnout
Hello, On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 23:26:16 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > Fair enough, but then I'd like that the rule be: > > > > * If the upstream package name is luafoo, then it should be luafoo in > > Buildroot. > > > > * If the upstream package name is foo, then it should be lua-foo in > > Buildroot. > > > > Does that sound OK? > > That's exactly what I meant. Should I update the Config.in? Yes, would be nice. Thanks! Thomas
diff --git a/package/Config.in b/package/Config.in index cf9c401af0..efcde1fdd2 100644 --- a/package/Config.in +++ b/package/Config.in @@ -521,6 +521,8 @@ endif if BR2_PACKAGE_HAS_LUAINTERPRETER && !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # lua modules are dynamically loaded, so not available on static builds menu "Lua libraries/modules" +# When adding lua packages, make sure the name start with "lua". +# Many packages currently don't, but that's historical accident. source "package/argparse/Config.in" source "package/cgilua/Config.in" source "package/copas/Config.in"
We have decided that lua packages should have a name that starts with lua (like is the case for python and perl). However, we're not going to rename all the existing lua packages that don't start with lua. This makes it unclear for people adding packages how they should name the package, so add a comment to package/Config.in to explain it. It's rather terse but it gets the message across. Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be> --- package/Config.in | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)