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

[Diego Nehab <diego@...>]

Hi,

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

Are you going to hijack it? :) Kidding. Do we know the person in
charge, i.e., is he/she listening?

> - 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.

LuaBinaries changed to lua5.1, right? It would be just
a matter of consistency. I guess I also prefers lua51, but I
don't have a strong feeling. After all, the other executable
is lua50 anyways, so completion won't work either way. :)

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

Not really. Applications that use Lua might choose not to
use the interpreter, so they need the shlibs. What it means
is that the interpreter (and libraries such as LuaSocket) do
no depend on shlibs.

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

I was thinking of Mike's advanced readline patch, and of
John's patch for versioned environment variables.

    http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2006-02/msg00438.html
    http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2006-04/msg00180.html

Both fall in that category and are very useful.

Regards,
Diego.