[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Standardizing lua names on *nix systems (and their distributions)
- From: Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:54:04 -0600
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Hisham <email@example.com> wrote:
On 1 February 2015 at 22:35, Pierre Chapuis <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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/luajit -> luajit-2.0.3
> /usr/bin/luarocks -> luarocks-5.2
> and for pkgconfig:
> 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).
When I develop for Lua, it's always in a sandbox and sandboxes seem to be a use case that is an afterthought, or was, when I tried to use LuaRocks in Windows. This may have changed.
However, I also want to use Lua as a scripting language and that installation looks more like what LR does by default.
That hints that this is an LR-related observation, however: Would it be helpful if package maintainers had separate "liblua5.X" and "lua5.X" packages?