Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency

[Ulrich Schmidt <u.sch.zw@...>]

Am 21.05.2014 13:00, schrieb Thijs Schreijer:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> > Behalf Of Philipp Janda
> > Sent: woensdag 21 mei 2014 12:00
> > To: lua-l@lists.lua.org
> > Subject: Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
> >
> > Am 21.05.2014 10:22 schröbte Ulrich Schmidt:
> > > Am 21.05.2014 10:16, schrieb Thijs Schreijer:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org
> > > > > [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> > > > > Behalf Of Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
> > > > > Sent: dinsdag 20 mei 2014 13:53
> > > > > To: Lua mailing list
> > > > > Subject: Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > So.... there was some opposition to remove the MinGW target. But what
> > > > if a separate makefile for MinGW was included (in /etc for example,
> > > > similar to the /etc/luavs.bat file for Visual Studio)?
> > > >
> > > > It would allow a specific makefile, working on more Windows
> > > > configurations (eg. No 'cp', or 'rm', but their plain Windows
> > > > equivalents) without polluting the generic makefile.
> > > >
> > > > Thijs
> > > Why not? :) As long as it works and is easier to maintain, its ok.
> >
> > That would work for me too (as does the current Makefile), but if we
> > provide a full-featured Makefile for Windows including an install
> > target, we really have to define a default directory layout on Windows
> > (preferably one that works without setting (m)any environment variables
> > or compiler flags, or that at least has some other advantage over the
> > alternatives) ...
>
> The current 'luaconf.h' defaults for LUA_PATH and LUA_CPATH, dictate most of this already (unless you change them too).
>
> The defaults currently are (added linebreaks for readability);
> LUA_PATH
>    !\\lua\\?.lua;
>    !\\lua\\?\\init.lua;
>    !\\?.lua;
>    !\\?\\init.lua;
>    .\\?.lua"
>
> LUA_CPATH
>    !\\?.dll;
>    !\\loadall.dll;
>    .\\?.dll
>
> What struck me was that it seems that `.\\?\\init.lua` is missing from LUA_PATH ? or is there a specific reason?
>
> What I don't like is that the CPATH does not allow for a separate folder for the binary modules (even if it just were /lua/, as there is no problem in mixing .dll and .lua files).
>
>
> > > Ulrich.
> >
> > Philipp

Thats why i stated: "roll your own"
Those paths need to be revisited/changed: IMHO ...
- i dont need different locations for lua- and/or dll-modules
- i dont need loadall.dll (historical?)
- i need \?\init.lua

i set up my module search path this way
 1. look for a version depend module (.dll/.lua)
    in ./modules/5.1/.. (for instance)
 2. look for a non version depend module (.lua only)
    in ./modules/
(change the sub directory name as you wish.)

Ulrich.