Re: Lua on fink (OS X), cont'd...

[Asko Kauppi <askok@...>]

Hi. :)

I haven't been granted fink maintenance for the Lua package, yet, so  
this all is "thin air" until that.

- Numbering: matter of taste, my liking is 51 and I think it was left  
hanging (some for 5.1, some for 51). Will follow, if everyone goes  
5.1. But I think that is unnecessary, Lua does not use the micro  
number for functional changes, so any numbering will be totally clear  
even without the dot.  lua101 will be Lua 10.1, that is. :)

So basically I am for 51 simply because of shortness, and general  
dislike of dots in executable names. :)  **ditching**

- Should/could also OS X binaries export the symbols?  That would  
make the -shlibs package essentially unneeded, right?

- No patches, but there could be. If they don't change behaviour (=  
no syntax shorthands) and/or add dependencies.

-asko


Diego Nehab kirjoitti 10.5.2006 kello 1.37:

> Hi,
>
> > a84-231-228-244:~/Slug/public/lua-fink nomovok$ ls -al /sw/bin/lua*
> > lrwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin      13 May  9 17:07 /sw/bin/lua -> /sw/ 
> > bin/lua51
> > -rwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin  162604 May  9 17:05 /sw/bin/lua51
> > lrwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin      14 May  9 17:07 /sw/bin/luac -> / 
> > sw/bin/luac51
> > -rwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin  110128 May  9 17:05 /sw/bin/luac51
>
> I like the split. But have we settled down with regard to
> the name of the programs? Shouldn't they be lua5.1, luac5.1,
> and bin2c5.1?
>
> Also, do these executables export dynamic symbols so other  
> libraries can link to them instead to lua dylibs?
>
> Are you going to include any patches by default?
>
> Regards,
> Diego.