Re: Re[2]: package proposal

[Asko Kauppi <asko.kauppi@...>]

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 
public.

-ak

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" <asko.kauppi@sci.fi>
> To: "Lua list" <lua@bazar2.conectiva.com.br>
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: 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 
> > distribution.
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > -ak
> >
> > 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).