Make Lua a hard requirement for rpm #1527
Conversation
|
@pmatilai small nit of the commit message: "practise" -> "practice" (en-gb has the former for verb, but you're not using it that way, and en-us doesn't have that spelling at all). |
|
Right, I have to say I seem to have forgotten that particular nuance of the English language. Will fix, but I have to say I was expecting somewhat more fundamental discussion over this matter 😆 |
|
Nah, this makes a ton of sense to do. At some point, I need to figure out how to do Lua for debbuild too. I just don't know how I'll square that with how Debian package scripts work... |
More and more macros, scriptlets and other functionality has been getting built around Lua, to the point that it has in practice been required for several years now. Maintaining the pretense of being optional comes at a cost in holding back developments and having to check for that theoretical special case. Lets make it a hard requirement and embrace it some more!
|
Spelling fixed... |
|
Okay so nobody objects, even remotely, to the actual change. Except for myself, for whom this will make bisecting old stuff somewhat more difficult, but then ability to disable Lua only helps if the thing to bisect is not Lua. There's a price to everything, shrug. |
More and more macros, scriptlets and other functionality has been getting
built around Lua, to the point that it has in practise been required for
several years now.
Maintaining the pretense of being optional comes at a cost in holding
back developments and having to check for that theoretical special
case. Lets make it a hard requirement and embrace it some more!