Re: [PATCH 1/3] gnu: lua: Update to 5.3.3.

[Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1677 bytes --]

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

> On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 06:43:39PM +0000, Marius Bakke wrote:
>> Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:
>> > Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
>> >> Does this lua52-liblua-so.patch still apply / is it still needed for Lua
>> >> 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.
>> 
>> How should we proceed with this? I think renaming it to
>> "lua-liblua-so.patch" is fine, since it applies to the current release.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> The third option is of course keeping the lua52 name, but I see how that
>> can be confusing for the next code spelunker.
>> 
>> 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.

Good idea. I pushed these changes in f4dc22bcd95eaebb026457c0a36396517be64130.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 454 bytes --]