Re: lua fink packages

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

Re: lua fink packages

Asko Kauppi

Looking at the Lua/Fink (OS X command line package manager, one of  
them) situation, nothing much seems to have changed in a year?

Any volunteers, yet?  Or am I standing in queue just by myself?  :(

-asko


Asko Kauppi kirjoitti 13.4.2005 kello 1.12:

>
> First, LuaX will be provided as a 'fink' package for OS X users,  
> once the burocracy takes its time, and if no major packaging  
> problems are found.
>
> Also, I noticed that the current mainline Lua packages in fink are  
> somewhat outdated:
>
> no stable version, 5.0-1 in unstable (not 5.0.2-x)
>
> Is somebody actively in charge of this?  Especially now that  
> dynamic module loading begins to support OS X as well, it would be  
> great to have the latest "out there".
>
> -ak
>
> ps. people kind enough to help test LuaX fink packaging, the line  
> starts here.. :)
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lua fink packages

Diego Nehab-3
Hi,

> Looking at the Lua/Fink (OS X command line package manager, one of them)
> situation, nothing much seems to have changed in a year?
>
> Any volunteers, yet?  Or am I standing in queue just by myself?  :(

I am also waiting. But I would like to see it patched to use
the improved readline and the versioned environment
variables... Otherwise I will keep compiling my own.

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

Re: lua fink packages

Asko Kauppi

My own is at svn://slugak.dyndns.org/public/lua-fink/

What I'd actually expect :) is Lua Binaries to supervise any  
packaging activities, to make sure certain common rules are observed  
throughout architectures. Then have individual developers take care  
of the particular packaging infrastructure. Is LuaBinaries listening? :)

-asko


Diego Nehab kirjoitti 24.4.2006 kello 5.13:

> Hi,
>
>> Looking at the Lua/Fink (OS X command line package manager, one of  
>> them) situation, nothing much seems to have changed in a year?
>>
>> Any volunteers, yet?  Or am I standing in queue just by myself?  :(
>
> I am also waiting. But I would like to see it patched to use
> the improved readline and the versioned environment
> variables... Otherwise I will keep compiling my own.
>
> Regards,
> Diego.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lua fink packages

Antonio Scuri
At 03:21 24/4/2006, Asko Kauppi wrote:
>What I'd actually expect :) is Lua Binaries to supervise any
>packaging activities, to make sure certain common rules are observed
>throughout architectures. Then have individual developers take care
>of the particular packaging infrastructure. Is LuaBinaries listening? :)

   YES! We are listening...  :)  Sorry about the delay on feedback
about the fink package.

   In the ideal world of the week with 14 days, we would like to have
RPM, fink and others under LuaBinaries. But we simply do not have the
time to do it, at least for the moment.

   In fact we do supervise packaging activities on the list. For
example, the Debian package uses a nomenclature in UNIX different
than ours, but it seems to be binary compatible, so a link solves the problem.
   Another example is that apparently Fedora needs its own naming
convention. BTW there is a Lua 5.0.2 package already available in
Fedora using the Add/Remove Programs clone in the GNOME interface.

   About the Lua fink package I did not try it. Since I struggle with
fink the last time I tried to install what I want, my motivation was
drowned way... My Mac is now offline after the last update from
Apple, don't know what happen, the local network is working but it
does not access the Internet. So I will need first to fix this.

   For now LuaBinaries is a "binaries only" distribution. How to
install that binary on the system is another step we still have to make.

Best,
scuri

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lua fink packages

Asko Kauppi

hmm, okay... :)

Would it be possible to at least have a document (wiki page will  
do :) describing the needs that LuaBinaries is recommending for  
various packaging infrastructures. Because there _must_ :) be some.

Or even a test suite to make sure, if things are available in the way  
LuaBinaries recommends. Such a test suite could be available using  
Gnu makefile, and/or some .lua files. You would benefit from it  
yourself, and we could stamp the fink package as "LuaBinaries  
approved" ;) if you may.

-asko


Antonio Scuri kirjoitti 24.4.2006 kello 17.48:

> At 03:21 24/4/2006, Asko Kauppi wrote:
>> What I'd actually expect :) is Lua Binaries to supervise any
>> packaging activities, to make sure certain common rules are observed
>> throughout architectures. Then have individual developers take care
>> of the particular packaging infrastructure. Is LuaBinaries  
>> listening? :)
>
>   YES! We are listening...  :)  Sorry about the delay on feedback  
> about the fink package.
>
>   In the ideal world of the week with 14 days, we would like to  
> have RPM, fink and others under LuaBinaries. But we simply do not  
> have the time to do it, at least for the moment.
>
>   In fact we do supervise packaging activities on the list. For  
> example, the Debian package uses a nomenclature in UNIX different  
> than ours, but it seems to be binary compatible, so a link solves  
> the problem.
>   Another example is that apparently Fedora needs its own naming  
> convention. BTW there is a Lua 5.0.2 package already available in  
> Fedora using the Add/Remove Programs clone in the GNOME interface.
>
>   About the Lua fink package I did not try it. Since I struggle  
> with fink the last time I tried to install what I want, my  
> motivation was drowned way... My Mac is now offline after the last  
> update from Apple, don't know what happen, the local network is  
> working but it does not access the Internet. So I will need first  
> to fix this.
>
>   For now LuaBinaries is a "binaries only" distribution. How to  
> install that binary on the system is another step we still have to  
> make.
>
> Best,
> scuri
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lua fink packages

Antonio Scuri
At 15:01 24/4/2006, Asko Kauppi wrote:
>Would it be possible to at least have a document (wiki page will
>do :) describing the needs that LuaBinaries is recommending for
>various packaging infrastructures. Because there _must_ :) be some.

   Ok. I guess we just have to adjust that information in the
LuaBinaries home page. An explicit item describing package
compatibility should be added.


>Or even a test suite to make sure, if things are available in the way
>LuaBinaries recommends. Such a test suite could be available using
>Gnu makefile, and/or some .lua files. You would benefit from it
>yourself, and we could stamp the fink package as "LuaBinaries
>approved" ;) if you may.

   Great idea. This is something we can do.

Best,
scuri

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lua fink packages

Asko Kauppi

I've _finally_ gotten Fink packaging to go right, also with Lua 5.1  
shared library usage (this is a combination of packaging, OS X  
linkage thingies and Just Trying Until It Works... pheew!)

It seems, existing packages never bothered with the .so/.dylib side  
much, or then something's changed? Anyways, with the lua51.info file  
both "lua51" command line and "-llua" binding work right.

Are these file contents right (LuaBinaries please give critic?)

        /sw/include/lua.h
        /sw/include/lua.hpp
        /sw/include/luaconf.h
        /sw/include/lualib.h
        /sw/lib/liblua.5.1.0.dylib
        /sw/lib/liblua.5.1.dylib
         /sw/lib/liblua.dylib

That is, I left 'liblua.a' static library out completely; will it be  
missed?  How would one anyways define between static or dynamic  
linkage, by adding "liblua.a" to gcc parameters as such?

To get the lua51.info file:

        svn cat svn://slugak.dyndns.org/public/lua-fink/lua51.info

To get my whole "development cookpot":

        svn co svn://slugak.dyndns.org/public/lua-fink

-asko


Antonio Scuri kirjoitti 24.4.2006 kello 21.49:

> At 15:01 24/4/2006, Asko Kauppi wrote:
>> Would it be possible to at least have a document (wiki page will
>> do :) describing the needs that LuaBinaries is recommending for
>> various packaging infrastructures. Because there _must_ :) be some.
>
>   Ok. I guess we just have to adjust that information in the  
> LuaBinaries home page. An explicit item describing package  
> compatibility should be added.
>
>
>> Or even a test suite to make sure, if things are available in the way
>> LuaBinaries recommends. Such a test suite could be available using
>> Gnu makefile, and/or some .lua files. You would benefit from it
>> yourself, and we could stamp the fink package as "LuaBinaries
>> approved" ;) if you may.
>
>   Great idea. This is something we can do.
>
> Best,
> scuri
>