lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 10:08:38PM +0000, Guido Sohne wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Diego Nehab <> wrote:
> >Did you want the kitchen sink?

> 1) It would be great if your build process could support being built
> directly into the interpreter. My system doesn't have dynamic linking,
> so I had to hack your Makefiles (needed in any way, because the
> compiler flags have to be <just so> to get it to actually run on the
> target system).

I would need this as well, if you are taking requests!

We are building and deploying applications, and needing to distribute
.so-style extensions is too much added to an already complex
distribution system (of ours). We statically link lua in, I'm working on
getting the .lua code linked in as well, we don't want to load from disk
- just copy the executable and run it.

I say "would" because we are still on lua 5.0.2, and I'm still looking
around trying to find a LuaSocket that supports 5.0.2 (without compat,
since that adds dynamic extension support which I donn't want), and that
supports unix domain sockets. LuaSocket looks great, and I'm hoping to
not write this code myself.

I really hope to be able to move to 5.1, but so far haven't got
agreement. When we do, we will be building it without dynamic extension
support, and statically linking the aux libs in.

Btw, I think dynamically loaded extensions are great, theres no other
way to go for lots of use cases, but for a language like lua, often
bound into other applications, it isn't always a good fit. We use lua as
a kindof replacement for some C code, and just like C, we want it built
into our binaries, even though its linux which has dlopen() support.