From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gnu: lua: Update to 5.3.3. Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 14:49:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20161105184923.GA11314@jasmine> References: <20161031132944.2353-1-mbakke@fastmail.com> <20161031132944.2353-2-mbakke@fastmail.com> <20161031175534.GB27555@jasmine> <87oa20uleu.fsf@duckhunt.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87k2ch6a3o.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gKMricLos+KVdGMg" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42959) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3620-0002L3-Ou for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 14:49:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c361v-0003Ml-Tu for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 14:49:32 -0400 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:49482) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c361v-0003MH-QI for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 14:49:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k2ch6a3o.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Marius Bakke Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 06:43:39PM +0000, Marius Bakke wrote: > Marius Bakke writes: > > Leo Famulari writes: > >> Does this lua52-liblua-so.patch still apply / is it still needed for L= ua > >> 5.3? I remember that there were significant differences between how Lua > >> 5.1 and 5.2 in terms of building a dynamic Lua library. > >> > >> If so, I guess we should rename it. > > > > I tried building 5.3 initially without patches and noticed the shared > > library was not created. It applies cleanly and works as advertised. > > > > Should I rename it to just lua-liblua-so.patch? IMO the version number > > is useful information, even if it applies for a later minor release. I'm > > in favor of keeping it, and create the lua54 equivalent if/when needed. >=20 > How should we proceed with this? I think renaming it to > "lua-liblua-so.patch" is fine, since it applies to the current release. >=20 > Another option is "lua52-lua53-liblua-so.patch", although we will have > to keep renaming it for all future versions it applies to in that case, > which seems like unnecessary noise. >=20 > The third option is of course keeping the lua52 name, but I see how that > can be confusing for the next code spelunker. >=20 > I don't have a strong opinion either way, but will go ahead with the > first option unless there are any objections. The first option sounds good. Please add a comment to the patch mentioning which Lua versions it should be used for. --gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYHimvAAoJECZG+jC6yn8IZ/EQAIDbKqXtBhcA9LaVx0TcY2xc eUSeeOYRHpjf1WwT514wnV3LsvxKaqvzX4DPk8wowW9/4mlzWblFGBCXLeSpjn3g EFDDP0xkqBeQSFO7Yo8h+S05jc7odFynwuBeeayRpHh6kSCxIUZZBZvn0OhCBPXQ QbKTdlpO6fSXcVrVo9jVLYaoHA6JY6nseC6o8cbY6dLLiX8HU4gZSL7pI+ZaqscJ nNyrc9s0Hv6E7AJkuzsDwYe7EwY332YagnpbviRKhGj4LXCvS+dYJZJTfn2pLGI8 nYeC83bqhyHXS8zT6rDvaf9eMXjooKYZkeqIDFhm+qz7BxNTXYllWXzXSnuBMuSQ zZX8W8I2pCb4prOvUE/K/G4A5Qf6OI8WNz0TscDDTMTKxt6M4THwx3rjD73VfdIv gN/Q34qVp93KgAjQigmolZ7jo5ap1dA7yz23Yy2DDgY/0SpN5s59J46TEb/A9jpx 6tG3eNOn5DKhu5jGs3OWoh/LVABpcWbTu6ypJQyf1KUFvTqrXsFBBskEI8w7EZWQ dE3GUE0+33UhIoUdGIvzszHgovFowrN0h1L+6gQrpJXJH4aptCb+MK1DfutAk/75 3raMsTZIKIqkeZWg0te9jncpapeN0XBiun9kIa4KIW/j9AtE5Bjs3+zooLYqm4+O VxIuWIhicvys+Jzc+47U =NmHM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gKMricLos+KVdGMg--