[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Re: package proposal
- From: Asko Kauppi <asko.kauppi@...>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:39:13 +0300
Imho, if people are not giving away (meaning, disclosing) their
sources, I don't think such modules should be in a public Lua
deployment system anyhow. Give an example?
i.e. NI-DAQmx interface and their GPIB stuff too, are proprietary, but
only as far as the drivers are involved. They need to be installed
separately, of course. But the interfacing to such drivers can be
24.9.2004 kello 06:39, Peter Loveday kirjoitti:
Yes, absolutely binaries if available.
Issues of compilers aside, lets not forget that not everyone will want
to (or will be able to) give away sources to their modules.
Love, Light and Peace,
- Peter Loveday
Director of Development, eyeon Software
----- Original Message ----- From: "Asko Kauppi" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Lua list" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re: package proposal
I wasn't planning to go this far on the route, yet. Just to see,
which implications the discussion on modules would have for
But, having said that, I agree with your list below. Note: PocketPC
should also be as #1. Incidentially, this is also the way LuaX
does.. ;P (well, 1 & 3 anyhow)
23.9.2004 kello 03:44, Adrián Pérez kirjoitti:
The only advantage of Windows binaries is that they are compatible
across a plethora of versions of the OS. So I think that the
following options could be possible:
1. If under Win32, grab a binary version of the module.
2. Under Unix, grab a binary version if available.
3. Under Unix, build from sources.
(Note: I think of MacOS X as another Unix flavour).