[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Lua5.1-work3 loadlib cleanups
- From: Asko Kauppi <asko.kauppi@...>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:11:27 +0200
7.12.2004 kello 11:46, Mike Pall kirjoitti:
Asko Kauppi wrote:
Anyhow, I do have a working loadlib.c for LuaX, that _could_ be used
such with original Lua. I'll need to see what are the real differences
with w3 there.
I just took a peek at luaX-070/Sources/loadlib.c and I guess it could
used with only a few modifications (provided that you donate the code
to the Lua core under the Lua license?).
That code (all of Sources/*) already is under Zlib/Lua4 license. Doing
it MIT (Lua5) is quite okay, and since it's really a modified/patched
Lua loadlib.c to begin with, I don't even feel like being an author
If the Lua authors were to approve, there's some WinCE fixes pending.
Otherwise, that version is good to go.
And yes, you're right: OS X 'bundles' is what you want to have.
Thank you for clearing this up.
To make it more confusing.. bundle libraries normally have a ".dylib"
extention just as regular libraries do, although they could have any
other s.a. ".lux".
I think the established convention for most cross-platform packages
need shared libraries is to use ".so" even on Mac OS X. That way we
have to provide yet another variant of the package path in luaconf.h
BTW: I hope /usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/?.so is acceptable on Mac OS X, too?
Hmm.. yes, why not. It's where your stuff goes if you build it
manually. Fink (nice cmdline package manager, like apt-get) uses
'/sw/...' and OS X itself the normal (/bin, /usr/bin etc.).
Still, I'd place shared objects under /usr/local/share/.
BTW#2: Anyone has any objections against dropping
/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/lib?.so (note the "lib?.so")
from the C package path (for POSIX)? I think a single convention
for naming the library file should suffice.