 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
It was thus said that the Great Sean Conner once stated:
> It was thus said that the Great Stefano once stated:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Based on the previous feedback, I implemented friendly html reporting for
> > your convenience.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > In general, there is not much you can do for the excluded cases.
> > ...
> > Please let me know if something is still unclear.
>
> Quite a few modules are rejected because of "depends on external library"
> yet that "external library" might very well exist on Linux and OSX (by
> default!) but not Windows [1]. Does the lack of a library on *any* platform
> exclude the module entirely? I ask, because the reason for
> "org.conman.uuid" being excluded is interesting. For two operating systems,
> it's because of "condenting module" error [2] but for Windows, it's because
> of "unsupported OS", which I read as, "once the contending module conflict
> is resolved, then we'll have "org.conman.uuid" for both Linux and OSX but
> not Windows."
Hmm ... had I scrolled around further on the pages, I could have answered
that question---it seems that if a module cannot be used on one platform,
it's not included at all [3].
But there's still another issue---where one version of a module is
available for all platforms, but not a newer version. lua-discount is an
example of this. I seem to recall you only packing the latest versions of a
module, but here it seems that packing an older version that works across
all platforms is better than not packing it at all. But that's my opinion.
-spc
> [1] Windows. Why did it have to be Windows?
>
> [2] discussed in a previous email
>
[3] luacwrap works for both Linux and Windows, but not for OSX so it's
not available. Then there's pdh, which is only available for
Windows, and it's not listed as a ulua module either. [4]
[4] Actually, the Windows only modules are an interesting case, as it's
in Windows that binary-only distributions are normal, because not
everyone has a C compiler. This might be an issue for uLua.