Re: Hmm. Why no binaries? - an open letter to Mike Pall

[Michael Gogins <michael.gogins@...>]

I've had no problems building LuaJIT from sources on Linux or Windows.
I understand why Mike Pall doesn't want the extra burden of
maintaining binaries.

I think anyone who does more than beginner programming ought to be
able to make and make install. And let's not forget that just getting
the cross-platform makefile working probably took some doing -- here's
my thanks for _that_!

Regards,
Mike Gogins



On 9/9/11, Gerry Weaver <gerryw@compvia.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Well... If Mike were to provide binaries for all of the currently supported
> platforms, he would be maintaining around 14 binary packages. He would then
> probably need to include debug versions of all of those, which would bring
> the total to around 28 binaries. Then there would be the library build
> variations etc. etc.. This would get out of hand pretty quickly as you can
> see.
>
>
> I'm curious about what the difficulty was in building the LuaJIT package.
> Did you read the installation instructions on the LuaJIT web site at
> http://luajit.org/install.html? He tells you what you need, where to get it,
> and how to build LuaJIT.
>
> Thanks,
> -G
>
>   _____
>
> From: Stefan Reich [mailto:stefan.reich.maker.of.eye@googlemail.com]
> To: Mike Pall [mailto:mikelu-1109@mike.de]
> Cc: Lua mailing list [mailto:lua-l@lists.lua.org]
> Sent: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:21:46 -0500
> Subject: Hmm. Why no binaries? - an open letter to Mike Pall
>
> Dear Mike!
>
>   I have to ask you this question directly as it has had me very
>   puzzled. (Sent to the list in CC because I like things to happen
>   publicly :])
>
>   You have a very good product - an excellent product even. From what
>   I've gathered and from some of the tech talk you wrote about it,
>   LuaJIT is an extremely professional undertaking.
>
>   You seem like a true professional compiler writer. I know this field a
>   little and I can tell when I see quality compiler engineering.
>
>   That said, I really wonder about your distribution stance with regards
>   to LuaJIT. Why no binaries...?
>
>   This just makes it hard to use your product. It hinders adoption. I
>   had to ask on a mailing list before I could use your software. Is that
>   the way you want this?
>
>   Why not just publish binaries?
>
>   For you, making binaries is a trivial exercise, as you know the
>   product inside out and you're actually producing them all the time
>   anyway.
>
>   For typical users, making binaries is difficult - it can easily too
>   difficult to bother, so many will just go and use something else. The
>   docs for building on Windows are also not that great. It takes
>   guesswork, especially regarding additional libs (e.g., LuaSocket).
>
>   Binaries for Windows are usually extremely compatible with regards to
>   different OS versions. One binary tends to run on all machines.
>   (Witness Lua for Windows!) So you wouldn't even need to maintain
>   multiple versions.
>
>   So - where's the point in making users do something that is hard for
>   them - and easy for you? I really don't get this position of yours.
>
>   Best regards and - this criticism aside - many thanks for a free
>   quality product.
>
>   Cheers,
>   Stefan
>
>


-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com