Re: Packaging Lua libraries

[Thatcher Ulrich <tu@...>]

On Mar 31, 2004 at 02:48 -0300, Andre Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 13:40, Jamie Webb wrote:
> > Other languages have a legacy. Lua doesn't (in this context at least). What 
> > purpose could 'backward compatibility' with other languages possibly serve? 
> 
> If anything, user-friendliness. At least I would prefer to have
> libraries for all languages on a single directory instead of scattered
> through the HD. And you will note that even languages without a legacy
> (e.g. ruby, ocaml, python) follow this model, just because it's where
> people expect to find their stuff.
> 
> > The Lua approach thus far has explicity been to do things the best way rather 
> > than the backward-compatible way, and that means using the FHS on systems 
> > (such as Debian) where policy dictates it.
> 
> Each operating system packagers will need to make adaptions for
> compliance with the specific hierarchy requirements. We can't predict
> which each system's path requirements are, so IMO library writers should
> use a "generic" path for installation, and leave the operating system
> specific policies for the operating system packagers. Again IMO, the
> best route would be following the other languages. At least we don't
> violate the principle of least surprise here.

My opinion on this is that following the FHS recommendations is a
worthwhile goal.  The FHS is an attempt to get us out of the insanity
where each OS and distro does things a little differently.  Kind of
like what we are trying to do in this thread.

-- 
Thatcher Ulrich
http://tulrich.com