lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



On Wednesday, January 30, 2002, at 02:03  AM, Nick Trout wrote:
It seems that we are talking about two different things here. I was
proposing a standard way of defining lua libraries, that
should be portable across multiple platforms,

I think this is the way to go. I cant really can't see the point of writing
a config file to build a static exe. Thats whats done already.

Not in any of the code I've seen. What's done now is each ad-on comes with code for it's own lua executable. Essentially, Lua is added on the "libs" instead of the other way around.

It means that
the executable needs to contain all libraries available to Lua and if you
merely want to try something out you have to build a new version etc. It
doesnt solve the problem.

It depends on which problem you are trying to solve. It does solve the problem of being able to easily combine libs.

and should for this reason
abstract details
about the operating system, like the path of the library and
prefixes/sufixes.

This would be nice. I think the DLLs just need to be in your path to be
loaded but it would be nice to add the functionality to search a "lua path"
for scripts and libraries.

Don't some platforms require the executable to know the absolute path to the shared lib while not providing the app with info about the path the executable?(Linux?) So the shared libs are essentially required to be in system folders and therefore seriously complicate user-level applications - admin access is required to install the libs & whose shared lib gets installed if two apps have a shared lib with the same name? It's dangerous to make the assumption that everyone that will want to be able to run a lua app is also a sysadmin.

Making shared libs the standard for lua-addons would make lua both platform dependent and sysadmin dependent.

Steve