Re: [ANN] LuaBinaries

[Daniel Silverstone <dsilvers@...>]

On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 11:13 -0300, Roberto Ierusalimschy wrote:
> > If it was only made to be extended then making a single lua executable
> > is fine. But assuming you want to continue with the tradition of lua
> > being easily embedded into other programs then not making libraries
> > would be a death-blow to Lua
> Sure we want to keep that tradition. The question was whether people
> that embed Lua use the standard library configuration. If most
> "embedders" have to create their own libraries (e.g., to select standard
> Lua libraries or to change number type) then it would be pointless to
> create the libraries in a standard way.

Apart from tidying the makefiles; Debian uses Lua as-is

> So, to the next question, following the discussion of dll's:
> is there any good reason to create two separated libraries
> (liblua.a/liblualib.a)? Would it be better to create a single .a file
> with the core and the standard libraries?

I'm not sure if anything in Debian uses liblua but not liblualib. It may
make sense to combine them into one library.

> > As it stands; Debian replaces a chunk of the standard Lua makefiles in
> > order to make shared objects properly.
> As Mike already commented, do we really need shared libraries outside
> Windows?

Yes, Very much so. I count seven programs other than Lua itself which
depend on liblua50 in Debian And another three or four which use
liblua40

D.

-- 
Daniel Silverstone                         http://www.digital-scurf.org/
PGP mail accepted and encouraged.            Key Id: 2BC8 4016 2068 7895