And thus building Lighttpd with lua support breaks :/
Since the Lua package has reverted to 5.1, it's all fine, but it'd be nice to try lighttpd + lua 5.2
Lua 5.2 no longer ships a complete .pc file. There is a make pc step, but it doesn't produce a complete .pc file.
So, not sure what to say here! Would be good to see how other package managers handle it, or if they have dropped .pc support for lua 5.2.
It looks like the Lua project considers writing the .pc to be a job of downstream packagers, not their job: http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2010-05/msg00641.html
Anyway, lighttpd's configure script searches for the lua-5.1 .pc specifically, so even if we installed a .pc file you wouldn't be able to use lighttpd with Lua 5.2. The solution there will just have to be "use Lua 5.1.4".
Ship a pc file long enough for third-party software to depend on it, and then remove it and shift responsibility for it and that now-broken third-party software to package managers. What bullshit.
Yeah, 10,000% agreed.
I guess lua 5.1 and the million names the .pc shipped under was a warning sign, but... argh.
For reference, this is the entirety of the output of make pc:
Which isn't enough for anything to actually use it.
We could ship a .pc that's a moderately-edited copy of the 5.1 .pc. Much as I hate to encourage bad behaviour...
This should probably be logged upstream as a bug.
The simple reasoning being that Lua can create a pkg-config file that works perfectly for 75% or more of all package managers. So, if 3 out of 12 systems have to modify or create their own .pc file because they do something weird, that is a heck of a lot better than all 12 systems having to repeat the same task and risk botching it along the way.
Seriously, I can't think of a single other project that is as high-profile as Lua that thinks creating .pc files is technically unfeasible and should be left to the packagers---there just isn't any reasoning or precedent for this move.
Closing, please complain to upstream (very noisily) to get them to reconsider.