[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Re: package proposal
- From: "Peter Loveday" <peter@...>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:09:18 +0930
Yes, absolutely binaries if available.
Issues of compilers aside, lets not forget that not everyone will want to
(or will be able to) give away sources to their modules.
Love, Light and Peace,
- Peter Loveday
Director of Development, eyeon Software
----- Original Message -----
From: "Asko Kauppi" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Lua list" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re: package proposal
I wasn't planning to go this far on the route, yet. Just to see, which
implications the discussion on modules would have for distribution.
But, having said that, I agree with your list below. Note: PocketPC
should also be as #1. Incidentially, this is also the way LuaX does.. ;P
(well, 1 & 3 anyhow)
23.9.2004 kello 03:44, Adrián Pérez kirjoitti:
The only advantage of Windows binaries is that they are compatible
across a plethora of versions of the OS. So I think that the following
options could be possible:
1. If under Win32, grab a binary version of the module.
2. Under Unix, grab a binary version if available.
3. Under Unix, build from sources.
(Note: I think of MacOS X as another Unix flavour).