RE: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency

[Thijs Schreijer <thijs@...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> Behalf Of Philipp Janda
> Sent: dinsdag 20 mei 2014 11:07
> To: lua-l@lists.lua.org
> Subject: Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
> 
> Am 20.05.2014 09:59 schröbte Thijs Schreijer:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Ulrich Schmidt
> >> Sent: dinsdag 20 mei 2014 8:24
> >> To: lua-l@lists.lua.org
> >> Subject: Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 20.05.2014 01:56, schrieb Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo:
> >>>> But it's the inconsistency between luaconf.h and the makefile (default
> >> behaviors) that I intended to address.
> >>>
> >>> What exactly do you propose to change in the top-level Makefile?
> >>> Changing INSTALL_LMOD and INSTALL_CMOD dos not really work because the
> >>> paths in luaconf.h include the location of lua.exe, which is not known
> >>> at build time and changes dynamically at each invocation.
> >>>
> >> We need to distinguish between windows- and linux installation 1st.
> >
> > How is MinGW classified? Is it windows or unix or both?
> 
> MinGW is just a C compiler, so it is neither Unix nor Windows. The only
> difference to other C compilers on Windows is that it is similar enough
> to Unix C compilers that it can be handled in the same Makefile. You
> probably meant MSYS or even Cygwin.

Yep. Sorry my mistake.

> 
> So, the executables produced via MinGW should follow the normal Windows
> rules, IMHO.
> 
> >
> > Can't we use the currently created structure as the "widely accepted
> > subfolder tree"? There is no technical reason that it won't work.
> > It's just not very windowish, and it limits platform differences.
> >
> 
> The way I see it is: There is no default directory structure for the
> standalone interpreter on Windows. The mingw target is included in the
> Unix Makefile as a convenience, and that Unix Makefile uses the usual
> Unix installation locations. No reason to read something into it for
> Windows ...
> 

I agree, but it also doesn't hurt to adopt those, does it? And adopting them would resolve a number of minor newbie issues, like default installations not working.

> 
> Philipp
> 
>