Re: Why nobody talks about Lua

[Christiaan Kras <c.kras@...>]

Ryan Pusztai schreef:

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Alex Combas <alex.combas@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Stuart P. Bentley <stuart@testtrack4.com> wrote:

I've found the Lua for Windows distribution to be magnificent for this. Its stated goal is to be a "batteries included" distribution of Lua, and I've found that to be pretty accurate (although IUP, CD, IM, LuaGL and LuaSocket are the only batteries I ever need). Now what we need is a Debian metapackage so we can have the equivalent on Ubuntu...

I think the reason there isn't a giant single meta Lua package is likely an idealogical difference between Windows and Linux. 

You see, Windows users know that Windows is a huge mess and don't mind throwing everything into one big directory, where as in Linux

the users and packagers are quite picky and insist that everything be packaged properly in its own neat little compartment. 

So if you were to create a single giant meta Lua package with batteries included it would likely never get accepted into Debian.

I do agree with you though, I wish there was 1 giant meta-Lua package for Linux. to hell with fussy Linux packaging standards :)

I agree! We need it. I wish I knew anything about packaging. Anybody able to help in this area?

--
Regards,
Ryan

I've had a go with creating a Debian/Ubuntu package a short while ago for work. To make a proper .deb can be quite bothersome and although there are quite some tools to help you out it's very confusing and a lot of hassle to create a proper package. However, as soon as you get it going it's not that much of a hassle anymore to keep it up to date.

That was a .deb that only installed some Bash scripts by the way. I figure source- and binary-packages are a lot more work.

Regards,

Christiaan

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature