Re: Standardizing lua names on *nix systems (and their distributions)

[Hisham <h@...>]

On 1 February 2015 at 22:35, Pierre Chapuis <catwell@archlinux.us> wrote:
>> If you are packaging Lua for a *nix distribution, please share your
>> naming schema so that we can find a common ground.
>
> I am not the packager but here is what Arch Linux does for binaries:
>
> /usr/bin/lua (this is 5.2)
> /usr/bin/lua5.1
> /usr/bin/luajit -> luajit-2.0.3
> /usr/bin/luajit-2.0.3
> /usr/bin/luarocks -> luarocks-5.2
> /usr/bin/luarocks-5.1
> /usr/bin/luarocks-5.2
>
> and for pkgconfig:
>
> /usr/lib/pkgconfig/lua.pc
> /usr/lib/pkgconfig/lua5.1.pc
> /usr/lib/pkgconfig/luajit.pc
>
> In my opinion they should do the same thing for Lua that they
> already do for LuaRocks and LuaJIT, which is use the 5.2 suffix
> and have /usr/bin/lua be a symlink to /usr/bin/lua5.2.

As a side note to this observation, the default installation from
source of LuaRocks does this out-of-the-box, naming the main script
`luarocks-5.x` and making `luarocks` an unversioned symlink.

Maybe it would be a good idea to try to find email contacts of some
major packagers? (I guess Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, Arch would cover a
good part of the Linux space (since also many distros, Ubuntu
included, are based on some of those), plus Homebrew for OSX).

-- Hisham