Re: [ANN] luaposix 5.1.28 released

[Ross Bencina <rossb-lists@...>]

On 6/04/2013 5:51 PM, Dirk Laurie wrote:
> In general, not just for this pacakge, why can't we aim at any package
> to build with exactly the same command as Lua itself uses? Surely
> few of us write packages of greater complexity. So it should just be
> a matter of replacing the contents of the src directory in the Lua
> distribution with one's own stuff and changing some target names.

Why can't we? to play devil's advocate:

1. There may be additional system include paths that are needed for 
building the package.

2. There may be additional libraries (shared or static) that need to be 
linked with the package.

This raises at least the following 3 points of variation:

A) If the dependencies are assumed to be installed:

A.1 are they always in the same location?

=> then use a single path for libraries and includes.

or
A.2 are they in different locations on different machines or operating 
system versions?

=> then determine the path on the current system


B) If the dependencies may not be installed:

B.1 determine whether the dependency is installed

=> then use them in A.1 or A.2 or fail.


Note here I'm not talking about Lua rocks dependencies, just system 
libraries and header files that may not be installed.


Case A.1 can probably be achieved using your minimal approach (even 
A.1+B.1 can work if the optional dependency is installed and only has 
one possible install location). A.2 and B.1 require more logic to do 
robustly.

Ross.