Re: Lua for Windows needs help

[Andrew Wilson <agrwagrw@...>]

The focus of LfW, as Ryan stated, is a binary release of Lua Scripting
on Windows, currently LfW has forward compatibility issues due to use
of MSVC2005 runtime libraries, and a limited library of lua modules.
With addition of LuaRocks the limited library issue is reduced since
new LuaRocks can be added. The number one user benefit would be to
easy timely provision of lua modules to users and second benefit would
give lua module creators a target platform for their creations.
Another benefit would be to include Mac & Linux, for added Lua
Scripting portability, and expansion of Lua user base.

Minimal LfW distribution
  - Installer, Lua, Lua libs, LuaSocket, Lua File System, LuaRocks,
WebRocks UI (Orbiter based)

Extensible pieces (not available on all systems)
  - Scite Editor/Debugger
  - IUP, wxLua
  - LuaJit
  - current LfW libs

Regards
Andrew

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Antonio Scuri <scuri@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>
>
>   I think that LfW is perfect as it is. I use it and recommend it every time
> someone asks me for a tip for beginners. I also test it whenever I can, and
> I'm willing to help even more, so I don't think it should have some radical
> change.
>
> * Should Lua and LuaJIT v2.x be included?
>
>   LuaJIT impose some restrictions on modules so there will be less modules
> available for LfW to include if LuaJIT is the main interpreter. LuaJIT for
> me is a tool for advanced developers, LfW is a tool for everyone, that
> include beginners. And those advanced developers know how to rebuild any
> module to fit their needs. This already happen with IUP for instance,
> although the pre-compiled binaries are not compatible with LuaJIT,
> recompiling the IupLua binding with a simple define is enough to make it
> compatible (although leaving the internal Lua files exposed).
>
>   * What are the most important modules for the stripped down version of
> LfW?
>
>   Why you have to reduce the current number of modules? Since LfW is already
> stable, to update a module binary is not simple?
>
>   * Which packaging system should be used? LuaDist for building and LuaRocks
> for adding new libraries to users installs?
>
>   * Can this be made to be cross-platform? (I hope so, that is a personal
> goal)
>
>   Recently I used the Ubuntu and Fedora GUI based package installation
> systems. Both already have Lua and several modules available. I think that
> those sources will be preferred by users in a long term. Just a thought.
>
>
>   Anyway, if building from source code, it can be made portable. But again I
> think the charm of LfW is that it is great as it is for Windows.
>
>
>   Ryan, I don't get the need for another Holy Grail. You already have a Holy
> Grail... Despite the Run Time Library endless discussion, what are your real
> needs? For the end user, what will be the benefits from those changes?
>
>
> Best,
>
> scuri
>
>
>
>
>
> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> Behalf Of RJP Computing
> Sent: quarta-feira, 2 de março de 2011 10:53
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Lua for Windows needs help
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Lua for Windows has been a great project, but the team thinks that it has
> reached as far as it can in it's current state. The problem is that Visual
> C++ 2005 is old and comes with very complicated deployment. Because of this
> Lua for Windows is looking for a way to build all the included modules from
> source. Now that has never been the goal of LfW, so we just take
> released binaries and include them. We would like to keep the focus in this
> area and ask for more help from the Lua community.
>
>
>
> We are looking for people willing to help test, build and bring packages
> into a package system.
>
>
>
> We need to discuss (which can be offline) what is the best approach to get
> the "the Holy Grail of 'build the world!'" for Lua for Windows. Once this
> is achieved, even partially we can start building a small limited Lua for
> Windows package based on this new approach.
>
>
>
> Things to still figure out:
>
>   * What are the most important modules for the stripped down version of
> LfW?
>
>   * Should Lua and LuaJIT v2.x be included?
>
>   * Which packaging system should be used? LuaDist
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/luadist/) for building and LuaRocks
> (http://luarocks.org/) for adding new libraries to users installs?
>
>   * Is LuaDist still alive and active? I goto http://luadist.org and the
> website is just a place holder. Can someone in the project comment?
>
>   * Can this be made to be cross-platform? (I hope so, that is a personal
> goal)
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Regards,
> Ryan