[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua DLL name (Was: [ANN] LuaODE 0.3)
- From: "David Burgess" <dburgess@...>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 23:29:41 +1000
What you say makes some sense. However, I think the naming standard
cause is lost because no one really ever agreed to a naming convention and
many different names for the lua51.dll exist. I think the best that can be done
is that the 5.2 lua components get an agreed (or specified by the Lua
team) standard. 5.1 should have taught us all a few lessons.
On 3/27/07, Antonio Scuri <email@example.com> wrote:
Sorry but I could not see a consensus on that thread. I saw some
suggestions only. And for me there is no standard for the library names,
since in UNIX the official distribution is always "liblua.a".
So LuaBinaries does NOT deviates from the "standard" since there is no
standard in UNIX. So the Makefile had to be changed to match the LuaBinaries
We use the same name in Windows and UNIX. This is a standard.
In fact I was in favor of using "lua51.dll" but since there were complains
about using "liblua51.a" because of another dam UNIX "standard" we adopt the
"5.1" suffix. Later we found that "that" UNIX standard is not "standard" at
all. But we couldn't go back since the Lua Binaries final version was
I hate to decide these things. If there was a clear "standard" for this I
will love to follow it.
BTW, Jerome Vuarand suggestion about creating a proxy DLL seems a good
idea. At least while we are still at 5.1.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Mike Pall
> Sent: segunda-feira, 26 de março de 2007 14:38
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Re: Lua DLL name (Was: [ANN] LuaODE 0.3)
> Antonio Scuri wrote:
> > BTW, only the mingw build uses that name.
> The name lua51.dll was agreed upon in a mailing list
> discussion in April 2005. The mingw build target and
> etc/luavs.bat reflect the consensus of this discussion.
> Please check the list archives.
> > The standard Makefiles available in LuaBinaries correct this.
> Err, no. LuaBinaries deviates from the standard. :-)
> > But when building development platforms in Windows, the
> problem arises.
> > The module need to link to the Lua DLL.
> Exactly my words:
> > So to sync the DLL name from the standard Lua distribution and
> > LuaBinaries seems to be a good idea.
> Absolutely! Please, go ahead. :-)