[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua on fink (OS X), cont'd...
- From: Asko Kauppi <askok@...>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 23:24:35 +0300
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.
Diego Nehab kirjoitti 10.5.2006 kello 1.37:
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/
-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 -> /
-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,
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?