Lua on fink (OS X), cont'd...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Lua on fink (OS X), cont'd...

Asko Kauppi

I have done a rework on Lua 5.1 'fink'
(http://fink.sourceforge.net) packaging, which I mentioned
earlier on the list.

It now follows the current Fink packaging policies as
close as I could :) but the split also feels more natural.
Here's how it goes:

Four packages, namely:
     lua             - just the symbolic links from 'lua'
to 'lua51', 'luac' to 'luac51' and same for man pages
     lua-dev       - development headers, static library,
and the version-numberless dylib link
     lua51-bin    - 'lua51' interpreter, 'luac51' byte
compiler (and man pages :)
     lua51-shlibs - shared libraries (version numbered)

The key is, that 'lua' and 'lua-dev' can only be of a
certain version at a time (obviously, user typing 'lua'
will lead to one place only..)

The 'lua51-bin' and 'lua51-shlibs', however, can safely
co-habit with any number of other Lua engines. This allows
i.e. an application script package (pure Lua) to depend on
'lua51-bin' without troubling any other packages on the
system.

Would like OS X people to have a look (thanks!) :) and
other packagers (apt-get, LuaBinaries, ...) to comment on
this split.  Could it be a generic 'good practise'
regardless of platform?

-asko


a84-231-228-244:~/Slug/public/lua-fink nomovok$ ls -al
/sw/bin/lua*
lrwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin      13 May  9 17:07
/sw/bin/lua -> /sw/bin/lua51
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin  162604 May  9 17:05
/sw/bin/lua51
lrwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin      14 May  9 17:07
/sw/bin/luac -> /sw/bin/luac51
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin  110128 May  9 17:05
/sw/bin/luac51
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua on fink (OS X), cont'd...

Antonio Scuri
At 11:16 9/5/2006, [hidden email] wrote:
>Would like OS X people to have a look (thanks!) :) and other
>packagers (apt-get, LuaBinaries, ...) to comment on this
>split.  Could it be a generic 'good practise' regardless of platform?

   I guess that this is a "natural" evolution for distributions.
LuaBinaries does not have the links using a short version name like
"lua", but they make sense to represent the latest lua version in the system.

   I like the new split, just not instaled yet.

Best,
scuri

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua on fink (OS X), cont'd...

Diego Nehab-3
In reply to this post by Asko Kauppi
Hi,

> a84-231-228-244:~/Slug/public/lua-fink nomovok$ ls -al /sw/bin/lua*
> lrwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin      13 May  9 17:07 /sw/bin/lua -> /sw/bin/lua51
> -rwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin  162604 May  9 17:05 /sw/bin/lua51
> lrwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin      14 May  9 17:07 /sw/bin/luac ->
> /sw/bin/luac51
> -rwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin  110128 May  9 17:05 /sw/bin/luac51

I like the split. But have we settled down with regard to
the name of the programs? Shouldn't they be lua5.1, luac5.1,
and bin2c5.1?

Also, do these executables export dynamic symbols so other
libraries can link to them instead to lua dylibs?

Are you going to include any patches by default?

Regards,
Diego.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua on fink (OS X), cont'd...

Asko Kauppi

Hi. :)

I haven't been granted fink maintenance for the Lua package, yet, so  
this all is "thin air" until that.

- Numbering: matter of taste, my liking is 51 and I think it was left  
hanging (some for 5.1, some for 51). Will follow, if everyone goes  
5.1. But I think that is unnecessary, Lua does not use the micro  
number for functional changes, so any numbering will be totally clear  
even without the dot.  lua101 will be Lua 10.1, that is. :)

So basically I am for 51 simply because of shortness, and general  
dislike of dots in executable names. :)  **ditching**

- Should/could also OS X binaries export the symbols?  That would  
make the -shlibs package essentially unneeded, right?

- No patches, but there could be. If they don't change behaviour (=  
no syntax shorthands) and/or add dependencies.

-asko


Diego Nehab kirjoitti 10.5.2006 kello 1.37:

> Hi,
>
>> a84-231-228-244:~/Slug/public/lua-fink nomovok$ ls -al /sw/bin/lua*
>> lrwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin      13 May  9 17:07 /sw/bin/lua -> /sw/
>> bin/lua51
>> -rwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin  162604 May  9 17:05 /sw/bin/lua51
>> lrwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin      14 May  9 17:07 /sw/bin/luac -> /
>> sw/bin/luac51
>> -rwxr-xr-x   1 root  admin  110128 May  9 17:05 /sw/bin/luac51
>
> I like the split. But have we settled down with regard to
> the name of the programs? Shouldn't they be lua5.1, luac5.1,
> and bin2c5.1?
>
> Also, do these executables export dynamic symbols so other  
> libraries can link to them instead to lua dylibs?
>
> Are you going to include any patches by default?
>
> Regards,
> Diego.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua on fink (OS X), cont'd...

Diego Nehab-3
Hi,

> I haven't been granted fink maintenance for the Lua package, yet, so this all
> is "thin air" until that.

Are you going to hijack it? :) Kidding. Do we know the person in
charge, i.e., is he/she listening?

> - Numbering: matter of taste, my liking is 51 and I think
> it was left hanging (some for 5.1, some for 51). Will
> follow, if everyone goes 5.1.

LuaBinaries changed to lua5.1, right? It would be just
a matter of consistency. I guess I also prefers lua51, but I
don't have a strong feeling. After all, the other executable
is lua50 anyways, so completion won't work either way. :)

> - Should/could also OS X binaries export the symbols?
> That would make the -shlibs package essentially unneeded,
> right?

Not really. Applications that use Lua might choose not to
use the interpreter, so they need the shlibs. What it means
is that the interpreter (and libraries such as LuaSocket) do
no depend on shlibs.

> - No patches, but there could be. If they don't change
> behaviour (= no syntax shorthands) and/or add
> dependencies.

I was thinking of Mike's advanced readline patch, and of
John's patch for versioned environment variables.

     http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2006-02/msg00438.html
     http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2006-04/msg00180.html

Both fall in that category and are very useful.

Regards,
Diego.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua on fink (OS X), cont'd...

David Burgess
Diego Nehab wrote:
> LuaBinaries changed to lua5.1, right?

Does automatically not make it the best thing to do.

DB
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua on fink (OS X), cont'd...

Diego Nehab-3
Hi,

>> LuaBinaries changed to lua5.1, right?
>
> Does automatically not make it the best thing to do.

I agree. But I think it is silly to have more than one
standard for something like this. This has already been
discussed. Both LuaBinaries and the Debian distro decided to
go with lua5.1.

Regards,
Diego.