> "RPH" == R P Herrold writes:
RPH> I was referring to: section 37 ("Scripting inside of spec files ")
RPH>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Scripting_inside_of_spec_files
Well, OK. I mean, Lua is right there so I'm not sure why you say it
would need to be added, and I
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "RPH" == R P Herrold writes:
>
> RPH> I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence ** of
> RPH> /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua
I was referring to: section 37 ("Scripting inside of spec
files ")
https:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, at 09:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 20:49 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> > > FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
> > > scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to ru
Hi Florian,
One problem is that there is a "rpm lua" and a "system lua" making it hard to
switch between scriplets and actual scripts.
As for bashisms, I don't seen the point of struggling for a smaller shell when
everything lately has been about wrapping code in fatter and fatter virtual
deli
On 10/27/2017 09:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
FW> It's often necessary to use Lua for scriptlets which run reliably
FW> because RPM lacks delayed script execution.
I guess it depends on how delayed you want them. The ordering is
certainly well defined but
On 10/27/2017 10:36 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367585
(But currently, as linked from one of the PRs, we just override
the Fedora glibc packages' use of lua, since it's unnecessary.
It seems strange to me that Florian has time to reply on list
her
On 10/28/2017 03:49 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua
scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell
script could
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 20:49 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> > FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
> > scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua
> > scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
> scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua
> scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell
> script could be hit before /bin/sh is installed an
> "AW" == Adam Williamson writes:
AW> FWIW, ISTR being told at some point that it's a good idea to write
AW> scriptlets in lua because RPM should *always* be able to run lua
AW> scriptlets, whereas at least in theory a scriptlet written in shell
AW> script could be hit before /bin/sh is insta
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 16:36 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, at 03:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>
> > FW> However, this use is controversial because some
> > FW> RPM lookalikes do not implement Lua scriptlets.
> >
> > For Fedora that certainly isn't a concern.
>
> For
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017, at 03:27 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> FW> However, this use is controversial because some
> FW> RPM lookalikes do not implement Lua scriptlets.
>
> For Fedora that certainly isn't a concern.
For the editions that use rpm-ostree, such as Fedora Atomic Host, it is:
See
> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
FW> It's often necessary to use Lua for scriptlets which run reliably
FW> because RPM lacks delayed script execution.
I guess it depends on how delayed you want them. The ordering is
certainly well defined but it's all a bit esoteric.
But sure, Lua is there
> "RPH" == R P Herrold writes:
RPH> I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence ** of
RPH> /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua
There's no "Scripts languages" section in the packaging guidelines as
far as I'm aware. Are you referring to the "Domain Specific Gu
On 10/27/2017 05:31 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Vít Ondruch wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
interesting to re-read
I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence **
of /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua
Each should pro
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
interesting to re-read
I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence **
of /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua
Each should probably be present for completeness ... it may
16 matches
Mail list logo
