 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Am 20.05.2014 11:19 schröbte Thijs Schreijer:
-----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: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.
What is a default installation on Windows? Do you really want to declare something a Unix Makefile does on Windows for one particular compiler by accident to be the default for Windows? The Unix paths aren't even a good fit on Windows (e.g. the lua5x.dll must be in the same directory as the executable or at least in PATH, and not in a lib subdirectory), and every compiler already has its own set of paths where it looks for include files or libraries.
Someone mentioned MS had rules for the locations of modules, scripts, etc. I'd rather see those locations added on Windows (or use the paths from LfW or LuaDist), so that you can write an installer for Lua that fits well with the rest of the Windows ecosystem (although an installer could just as easily set environment variables and/or use the paths relative to the executable).
Philipp