Re: Portable binary distribution of Lua 5.3.3 (32bit on Windows 10) with some batteries

["Pavel Drotar" <gmc1@...>]

Hi, Steve

I certainly don't want from Hisham to test rocks, just remind authors to do that, as I wrote. 
There are only several C modules which people consider "normal" in other languages and try to install them, if it not works, they blame Lua, Luarocks, whole community. Internet is full of posts "Why not Lua" and every one is related to this problem.

I work on Arch Linux several years and use Luarocks which works well on Linux.
I think the problem is in the claim "You are not your user". Please think about it.

> ** Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:47:25 +0200 - "Lua mailing list" <lua-l@lists.lua.org> **
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Pavel Drotar <gmc1@azet.sk> wrote:
> > LuaSQL-MySQL is good example. It's luarock will never compile on that weird thing called Windows. It's because bad library name in module's rockspecs file. There is no library named mysqlclient.dll in MySQL installation on Windows. Right name is libmysql.dll.
> 
> Then that's a bug - bother the rockspec maintainer. Part of the
> problem is most of us don't do the weird thing and don't _test_ on the
> weird thing.  Certainly Hisham can't test all the rockspecs he gets
> from people, it's the original author's responsibility and the
> community's responsibility to alert the author.
> 
> > How many very popular C modules are there which provide what is easy installable in other languages or is a part of the standard library, standard installation, like connection via https or connection to mysql? 10? 20? Is it so hard to ask authors to verify their work?
> 
> We get spoiled on well-set up development boxes. For instance, Debian
> packages most of the useful Lua libraries, it's an apt-get away.
> 
> Hence, the work you are doing is very important - you do the
> compilation so that others don't have to !
> 
> steve d.