[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Hmm. Why no binaries?
- From: "Gerry Weaver" <gerryw@...>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:28:35 -0500
I think you would find that there are a lot of folks on this list (including myself) that would be more than happy to help you with the problems your encountering building LuaJIT on Windows. However, you would need to go through the process and post questions about the specific problems your having.
I don't want to speak for other developers regarding the use of pre-built binary packages, but I don't use them. I prefer to build them myself, so that I know exactly how they were built. There are a lot of different build options and compiler flags that can have a fairly significant impact on the behavior of the code. If someone else builds the package, I have no control over any of this. Another issue is related to what compiler is used to build the package and what object file format it uses. Binary install packages have a tendency to either tweak your system environment paths or dump dll files in the system32 directory. If you are installing multiple packages, there may be different versions of the same dll in those packages. You have absolutely no idea which version you are running your code against. Many hours can be wasted trying to figure out why something isn't working correctly. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, binaries are NOT the best choice. This is especially true on Windows, because unlike Linux, dll file names are not versioned (dll hell). So... do yourself a favor. Take the necessary time to become familiar with your platform/OS of choice, your development language, and your development environment/tools. Dig into the open source code you are using and become familiar with any dependencies it has. You will improve the quality/stability of your code and save yourself a lot of time and frustration in the long run.
From: Stefan Reich [mailto:email@example.com]
To: Lua mailing list [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:24:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Hmm. Why no binaries?
Well, since I wrote the letter, I guess I might explain why I did that.
It's about LuaJIT.org. I'd like to see binaries there. Because
binaries are simple and reliable and sources are a hassle and
I think there may be some kind of philosophy (or rather, ideology)
behind not making binaries (and not even linking to them).
Some developers think it is somehow bad to supply binaries. I
understand this to a degree on Unix as there are so many different
binary-incompatible Unixes. I don't understand it on Windows.
But well, I don't care that much anymore, I'll find a way to build
LuaJIT for my systems if I decide to start using it. (Sticking with
plain Lua for now.)
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Gerry Weaver <email@example.com> wrote:
> Would someone kindly explain to me what the big deal is with this? I would
> really like to understand the issue, but I'm not seeing anything specific. I
> would like to know what y'all have read, what you've tried, and what is
> stopping you from building on Windows?
> BTW: I've removed Mike's name from the subject line, because I believe this
> issue has absolutely nothing to do with Mike or LuaJIT. It simply started as
> a lack of understanding about Lua and open source projects in general.
> From: Ralph Eastwood [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> To: Lua mailing list [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:07:35 -0500
> Subject: Re: Hmm. Why no binaries? - an open letter to Mike Pall
> I find it easier to cross-compile from linux than to build things on windows
> On 13 September 2011 12:27, Dirk Laurie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:05:56PM +0200, Dimiter "malkia" Stanev wrote:
>> > Personally I think this is a non-issue.
>> > ...
>> > Just google for "luajit.exe" simple as that!
>> > On 9/9/11 6:21 PM, Stefan Reich wrote:
>> > > For typical users, making binaries is difficult - it can easily too
>> > > difficult to bother, so many will just go and use something else. The
>> > > docs for building on Windows are also not that great. It takes
>> > > guesswork, especially regarding additional libs (e.g., LuaSocket).
>> > >
>> > > Binaries for Windows are usually extremely compatible with regards to
>> > > different OS versions. One binary tends to run on all machines.
>> > > (Witness Lua for Windows!) So you wouldn't even need to maintain
>> > > multiple versions.
>> Building binaries for Windows, as Stefan rightly says, is a pain in the
>> ass, except for people who daily build such binaries. In particular it
>> is a pain in the ass for people who are accustomed to work on developer-
>> friendly systems.
>> And as "malkia" points out, people who have succeeded in building such
>> binaries are usually glad to share them on the internet. It's such a rare
>> and pleasant feeling to possess legally redistributable Windows software!
> Tai Chi Minh Ralph Eastwood