[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua53 in the FreeBSD Ports Collection
- From: Russell Haley <russ.haley@...>
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 23:35:10 -0700
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Daurnimator <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 10 September 2017 at 16:44, Russell Haley <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> - files/patch-src__Makefile - This patch adds support for *.so files.
>> Can I ask why there is no built in target for shared objects files in
>> Lua? I am probably missing something. I checked the tarball and git. I
>> also tried to look this subject up on the archives but couldn't find
> It has been discussed many times (but hasn't come up in a few years now).
> When the lua team has attempted to provide a shared library target,
> all the distros end up modifying them anyway:
> - Some demand use of libtool
> - Some refuse to use libtool
> - Flags are not consistent between platforms
> - Flags are not consistent between compilers
> - Some want soname versioning
> - Some want symbol versioning
> Unable to satisfy more than a single party at once, lua removed the
> shared object target from the distributed makefile: it's now up to
> distros to do things in their preferred manner.
Thanks, this is the background I needed.
>> - The second post patch seems to change rand to random. My question
>> is: Is this patch necessary, does it affect other platforms, and
>> should it be pushed upstream?
> This patch is not necessary. See code it changes is unreachable if you
> define LUA_USE_POSIX.
hmmm... Thanks. I'll have to trace that.
>> Also to consider, there are now a number of patches listed for 5.3.4
>> on the bugs list. My assumption is that those are not in the official
>> tarball, but ARE in the head revision of the GitHub repo?
> The HEAD of the github repository is *not* lua 5.3. it contains the
> work in progress to then next release (5.4).
Okay, I guess not then.
>> I'm trying
>> to find the shortest path to a clean port file so my question is:
>> would it be easier to manually assemble the patches and continue
>> including a file and patching the tarball, or is there some merit to
>> switching over and downloading from GitHub based on a commit?
>> In conclusion, the failure of the freebsd target in my tests and the
>> heavy modification to the base makefile leads me to think it might be
>> worthwhile to switch to GitHub and use the base makefile to
>> springboard a separate FreeBSD makefile altogether. Thoughts?
> Do not change over to using the github repository.
> It is intended to be a view into the history of lua's development at a
> granular level.
> It does not include all pieces (e.g. luac is in a separate repository).
Alrighty then, no GitHub. Thanks!