Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> > It seems that plain MinGW doesn't have `rm` or `install` executables
> > (or a `mkdir` that understands `-p`), so you really have to work hard
> > to make the install target work for MinGW ...
>
> We haven't got any complaints about this but perhaps we should just
> remove the mingw target and avoid noise?

MinGW is not really Windows and it is more than a compiler. It's also a set of (not needed) shims for Lua. 

Personally, I'd rather you got rid of that target and included a decent Visual Studio 2010+ project file. There are 20 of us that could write the instructions for a newbie to work from that and those instructions would be about 4 steps.

I like the settings in luaconf.h, as they are. Windows has gone to an assembly approach where each application gets its own sandbox with its own copy of the DLLs that it needs. The current .h file reflects this and it makes Lua look very cross-platform / smart. 

If support for MinGW is needed, I'd suggest adjusting the makefile to Do The Right Thing during make install when mingw was the platform choice during make and leave luaconf.h alone. I don't know how one could do this, however...

-Andrew