[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: RE: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (work3) now available
- From: Thijs Schreijer <thijs@...>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 21:48:25 +0000
> I don't think there is single argument for keeping those two path elements,
> other than 'old habits die hard'.
> > For this to be a security risk, it would also need to be one for all of
> > other libraries that do the same.
> > It's at least one Stack Exchange trip with something along the lines of
> > working with a legacy library that..."
> > -Andrew
> Well, it depends.
> If Lua's REPL is an application, then I could not agree with you more. Then
> every thing should go into USRPROFILE or APPDATA. If you're saying that
> won't happen and so they should do this as a compromise because lots of
> people use LuaRocks, then... Okay? It seems to me that one should be
> changing Lua rocks, but I follow the logic.
There is no installer, so there is not a an option to place the files in those locations.
> If Lua's REPL is a debugging tool and Lua is a C library that is to be
> embedded into an application, then I still don't follow you. The way that
> it works, works out of the box.
My concern is the standalone interpreter. Embedding is advanced usage. It safer to tell and advanced user to add `!\?.dll` to the path than telling a novice he should remove it. Then still; embedding the interpreter with the defaults paths, doesn't sound like a good idea to me. They'll always (or at least should) be customized for that scenario imo. So nothing is lost there anyway.
> This goes back to the last thread. Lua does not have a Windows install
> script. Your suggestion makes things very slightly wonky for application
> developers in exchange for getting installed DLLs out of a users path, if
> they add the Lua install directory to that path. That's valid and I see your
> I don't like the approach. A simple bat file in a contrib directory can put
> everything in its proper place, if the user wants to install Lua for use
> from the command line.
> Failing that bat file, then this is pragmatic.
The other way around works also; a simple bat file adding it back in.
Just saying; the defaults should be safe.
> Is there a reason that you don't suggest putting the DLLs in the spot as the
> lua files? Such as in "luainstalldir\lua\?.dll"
Nope, would be totally fine.
> I don't see the advantage to putting different parts of the module into
> different sub paths.