Re: Lua libraries

[Jay Carlson <nop@...>]

On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, at 09:54 AM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo 
wrote:
> > The big question for me is whether to package pure Lua 4.0, or what 
> > I've
> > been calling Lua 4.0.1: liblua40.so with lua_loadbuffer and 
> > lua_loadfile
> > exposed, in order to support the new readline, line-spanning
> > /usr/bin/lua.
> Please package pure Lua 4.0. There is no official 4.0.1 or such.
> If you want, add the changes as patch file.
Yeah, I know there's no Lua 4.0.1, and it would be a bad idea to call it 
that.  I'm just calling it that in my head for now.
Anyway, after applying the patches, what do I call the resulting 
libraries and binaries?  I'm shipping binaries, so the user won't see 
the patch file.
The shared library liblua40-patched-with-loadbuffer.so.1.1 is completely 
compatible with all current uses of liblua40.so.1.0; that is a 
sufficient condition for it to share the same soname ("liblua40.so.1").  
That doesn't mean they *should* share an soname, but it does at least 
seem reasonable.
There's a separate issue of whether the shipped lua.h should include 
definitions for lua_loadbuffer.  My inclination would be "no", because 
it would force people to stick with the lua-4.0.tar.gz interface unless 
they explicitly declared lua_loadbuffer.
What do I do with the accumulated bug fix patches from lua-l?  Can I 
patch them into /usr/lib/lua40.so.1 and /usr/bin/lua40, or do I need to 
get a new name for that?
I think it would be useful to have an official Lua 4.0.1 with 
lua_loadbuffer and bug fixes.  The charter would be "no third party 
code", "no significant new features" (lua_loadbuffer just being an 
existing function exposed), "completely backwards compatible".  I think 
that means "no lua 4.1 /usr/bin/lua".
I'm willing to do the legwork for putting together such a 
patch/distribution.  I believe it would maintain the "no third party 
code" standard, as it's just tecgraf people's patches that are being 
applied.
Jay