[bug#46231] Add emilua

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Hello,

Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira <vini.ipsmaker@gmail.com> writes:

Thank you for your detailed answer! Some comments follow.

> I've used "define" instead "define-public" so it wouldn't be really
> available elsewhere in the system.

I know. But this does not prevent to choose an explicit name.

> However after some thought I do agree that this dependency can be
> generally useful to more people and should have a proper name.
>
> What do you think about the name openresty-luajit-lua52?

The trend in other distributions is to use luajit-openresty, in this
order. So maybe luajit-lua52-openresty? Or luajit-openresty if that is
unambiguous. It is not a big issue anyway.

>> - I see that emilua uses #:recursive? set to #true. Could some
>>   submodules could be unbundled by any chance?
>
> Some, yes, but not all. A Debian packager asked me the same and I
> already started to unbundle the dependencies where it can make sense
> to use the one found in the system. I can offer more details on why a
> few dependencies still must be provided as submodules if requested.
> Next emilua version (a couple of weeks away) should use more
> dependencies from the system and less bundled dependencies, but you'll
> still need #:recursive? set to #true for the bundled dependencies that
> will remain.

Then could you add a comment explaining what will be required, and what
can be removed later on (as a TODO)?

> I intend to solve this issue and I already started to investigate so
> it'll eventually be solved, but in the meantime I just disabled the
> tests. I don't control the paths the Lua VM generates so improving the
> AWK script is really my only choice here.

OK. Then could you add a short comment explaining the issue, and that it
is being worked on?

> Sure. Let's get the openresty-luajit-lua52 package in first and then
> I'll work on the second patch.

Great!

> Here's the patch for openresty-luajit-lua52 alone:
> https://gitlab.com/emilua/emilua/-/snippets/2079960

The version should be "2.1-20201027" and the commit (string-append "v"
version). Don't forget to remove the string-append in the description.
Also, the description itself is not particularly clear. Maybe

     This package provides the official OpenResty branch of LuaJIT.  It
     is not to be considered a fork, since changes are regularly
     synchronized from the upstream LuaJIT project.

Could you send this to this ML using git format-patch?

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou