#1: Please outline the migration plan for lua5.3 -> lua5.4.
Will it all be done in the Mantic cylce? When can we expect to demote 5.3?
[RESOLVED] via comment #3
#2: does not have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest
[RESOLVED]
#3a: does not have a test suite that runs at build time
#3b: test suite fails will not fail the build upon error.
> dh_auto_test
> make -j4 test
> make[1]: Entering directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>'
> make[2]: Entering directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/src'
> mode=execute -dlopen ./liblua5.4.la ./lua5.4 -v
> /bin/sh: 1: -dlopen: not found
> make[2]: [Makefile:92: test] Error 127 (ignored)
[RESOLVED]
#4: symbols tracking is not in place, is there a specific reason for that?
[RESOLVED]
#5: the current release is not packaged (current: 5.4.6, lacking 1.5 years behind)
[RESOLVED]
#6: debian/rules does lots of stuff, not very clean.
Generally, I feel like the packaging could need some love, see #7 / #8
[DOWNGRADE] to Recommended TODO, as I think this is manageable
#10: Please work with the Debian maintainer to get the versions back in sync.
I guess we don't want to diverge on toolchain packages like this.
[ADDED] as a new Recommended TODO
Thank you, LGTM!
MIR team ACK.
#1: Please outline the migration plan for lua5.3 -> lua5.4.
Will it all be done in the Mantic cylce? When can we expect to demote 5.3?
[RESOLVED] via comment #3
#2: does not have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest
[RESOLVED]
#3a: does not have a test suite that runs at build time >>/src'
#3b: test suite fails will not fail the build upon error.
> dh_auto_test
> make -j4 test
> make[1]: Entering directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>'
> make[2]: Entering directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR
> mode=execute -dlopen ./liblua5.4.la ./lua5.4 -v
> /bin/sh: 1: -dlopen: not found
> make[2]: [Makefile:92: test] Error 127 (ignored)
[RESOLVED]
#4: symbols tracking is not in place, is there a specific reason for that?
[RESOLVED]
#5: the current release is not packaged (current: 5.4.6, lacking 1.5 years behind)
[RESOLVED]
#6: debian/rules does lots of stuff, not very clean.
Generally, I feel like the packaging could need some love, see #7 / #8
[DOWNGRADE] to Recommended TODO, as I think this is manageable
#10: Please work with the Debian maintainer to get the versions back in sync.
I guess we don't want to diverge on toolchain packages like this.
[ADDED] as a new Recommended TODO