Re: Name for Windows Binary Project. Was: Re: [ANN] https://github.com/PUC-Lua

[Russell Haley <russ.haley@...>]

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:59 AM, dyngeccetor8 <dyngeccetor8@disroot.org> wrote:
> On 01/19/2018 11:57 AM, Russell Haley wrote:
>> Further, the name in the "Installer Programs" list should be:
>> "Lua 5.3 xx Bit"?
>> or
>>  "WinLua v.v xx Bit"
>
> In my opinion general name like "Lua 5.3 xx Bit" do not assume alternative
> projects that does the same. "WinLua v.v xx Bit" is better as such naming scheme
> allows another projects.

I agree to a point. (Please, push back on any points where I am being obtuse)

The problem I am trying to overcome is that I can't find Lua
installations that use MSI and install to Program Files by default. I
would therefore be trying to avoid a situation that doesn't exist. As
seemingly the first viable MSi for (for Lua 5.3), I may wish to take
advantage of that? However, I think you're correct for Program Files:

c:\Program Files\WinLua\Lua\5.x\...

would be appropriate to avoid the collisions at a file level.

Another point I'm grappling with is what was said in other
conversations about calling projects "Lua". In the case of this
project, I have not modified the sources in any way. From my
understanding, the Lua Team would not have issue with the installed
product being called "Lua 5.3 32 Bit" for example. I'd appreciate any
input on this from the Lua Team. But truly, what differentiates my
installer from a rpm or a deb file? Do *those* installations worry
about the name of the package or other installed versions? (no, they
usually install as luaXX or lua/x.x and overwrite whatever is in their
way).

At a project level, my hangups are two fold:

- What happens in the start menu the user types "lua"? When the
application is called WinLua, it comes up in a secondary result set
for applications, but doesn't seem to ever move to the primary result
set (tested on a few computers but nothing scientific). I guess I
could Call it "WinLua - Lua 5.3 XX Bit". But to me the important part
is *Lua* not *WinLua*.
- Would I version WinLua separately from Lua? WinLua 1 = Lua 5.3? The
other option is to use "5.3" the string value in the name, and
versioning of the project at a different level.

At the ownership/support/perception level, I have no question about
"owning" the binary package and supporting the installed product. But
the perception that this is something other than bog-standard Lua is
what I'm trying to avoid. Other planned parts like integration with
LuaRocks and the LuaDotNet will surely not be construed as being
"owned" by any other project and will be installed by *separate
installers* (but I may create a multi product installer at some
point).

Thoughts?

Russ