From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Bakke Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gnu: lua: Update to 5.3.3. Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 16:21:54 +0000 Message-ID: <87eg2o60kd.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> 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> <20161105184923.GA11314@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35717) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3QCr-0001x7-T2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:22:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3QCm-0002nK-Ty for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:22:05 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:37972) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c3QCm-0002lv-PK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:22:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20161105184923.GA11314@jasmine> 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: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Leo Famulari writes: > 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 = Lua >> >> 5.3? I remember that there were significant differences between how L= ua >> >> 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. Good idea. I pushed these changes in f4dc22bcd95eaebb026457c0a36396517be641= 30. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJYH1iiAAoJEKKgbfKjOlT6V/YH/36kUOAYLYa4yxtrO3+W+Oz5 fy7LBYMOpZNX3EtQD5cSFZBIFvsYbdbX69saCHi3dbJzMW5U9uEKjjF8SdRX1hFN rpPJSBSDGsNRt7q4RdSO9FIcL0oIm+A2yyxRqsG1oU5uMqrchAem8Np5f0Qci6Yh n7Lpz+4rxab5+fJlM1sRICryRto48j+ztDIvhbQDiD/9fz4dxolcB5qwAoCVAE1v Z7mkNO5rTBcitqklUnZFQjKxS6WbenpHVsvAg7Q/EEGPidbJo/cXGbxIUlSRnbPU iXPom4CR+ORoIYs86xnbEK1SteFKNh9TMMcjrrRpoeUz6+MqAj9K34IIRb0m9Ho= =/OAX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--