lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer <> wrote:
Philipp Janda <> writes:

> Am 25.03.2015 um 11:36 schröbte steve donovan:
>> And (getting back to the topic of Naming Things)  lua5.1.pc, lua5.2.pc
>> seems like reasonable default names.
> That ship has sailed. We recently had this discussion on GitHub:
> LuaRocks chose `luarocks-5.1`, on Windows `lua52.dll` seems customary
> now (for Lua 5.1 LuaBinaries chose `lua5.1.dll` instead), on FreeBSD
> you have `/usr/local/include/lua51` (but `lua-5.1` as executable and
> pkg-config name), and on Debian/Ubuntu you have the names you
> mentioned. And that's only the three OSes I work with ...

Do new versions have to follow the same naming schemes?  Would it be an
issue if the next Lua release ships e.g. lua-5.3.pc?

or even lua-5.4.pc

Downstream often tries to avoid patching so if Lua provides a sane pkg-config file downstream will most likely try following upstream.

As a downstream packager I would *love* that upstream Lua provided this.

I think it also would make sense to provide some default variables as INSTALL_CMOD and INSTALL_LMOD, but I think this might need a variant without $prefix.

This is an example why a variant without $prefix is needed:

Natanael Copa