[pkg-lua-devel] Bug#814218: lua-ldap: Add support for Lua 5.2

[Luca Capello]

tags 814218  + moreinfo
thanks

Hi there,

sorry for the delay, mostly due to real life and the fact that the
servers (with Prosody + lua-ldap) I administer are still on wheezy.

On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:33:53 +0530, Avinash Sultanpur wrote:
> The pdns-recursor is compiled with liblua5.2-0 and this package does
> not have support for Lua 5.2 which makes it unusable with Power DNS.
> 
> There are a couple of open pull requests on Github which add support
> for Lua 5.2. Please merge them in order to support Lua 5.2.
> 
> https://github.com/luaforge/lualdap/pulls

I am sorry, but after having tried for 2 weeks now I have given up
trying to understand where the lualdap sources reside, here some
comments:

- <https://github.com/luaforge/lualdap>

  AFAIK still the "official" repository, but development has never
  started on it, except for the 2 pulls requests.

  Yet, there are 13 forks on GitHub only!

- <https://github.com/devurandom/lualdap>
  <https://github.com/mwild1/lualdap>
   <https://github.com/jprjr/lualdap>
    <https://github.com/bdellegrazie/lualdap>

  If I read history correctly, some of the more prominent forks, now all
  stalled.

- <https://bitbucket.org/mva/lualdap>
   <https://github.com/msva/lualdap>

  I do not understand why 2 different repositories from the same author
  and no indications that they are the same :-(

- <https://git.zx2c4.com/lualdap>

  This should be the official follow-up, but as far as I could see
  nothing from the other forks (nor even the "official" one by
  bdellegrazie) has been integrated:

    <http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2015-03/msg00154.html>
     <http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2015-03/msg00178.html>

  Indeed, on LuaRocks the bdellegrazie's fork is listed:

    <https://luarocks.org/modules/bdellegrazie/lualdap>
  
- <https://github.com/mashape/lua-ldap>
   <https://luarocks.org/modules/mashape/lua_ldap>

  A very recent fork, wait, not even a Git fork but history rewritten...
  
I am aware of the poor maintenance in Debian, entirely due to my fault,
at least in term of all-the-upstream-sources following.

IMHO the best thing should be to ask for removal, especially given the
various upstream sources and to not give a false idea of what is being
installed.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lua-devel/attachments/20170104/67b1a904/attachment.sig>