> Actually, if you have a proper Windows environment for LuaRocks > working, it's probably easier to just build and pack those rocks > again... which brings me to some questions on what to do regarding the > .zip distribution. The LuaRocks .zip file for Windows includes Lua 5.1 > binaries based on msvc*80.dll (which, I believe, are from > LuaBinaries). > > 1) Should we keep including those? Might be as good as any, but... Microsoft updates the runtimes mostly every Visual Studio release. I find myself still working with VS2008, still no 2011 or 2012. So it is hard to find a constant you can support without getting incompatibilities every few years, many users will have different runtimes. And when you switch defaults, the user would have to update all his libraries.
> 2) Should we include mingw binaries instead? That would be the only constant possible (at least that is why I put up an effort to get my system on MinGW) > 3) If the answer to question 2 is "yes", can anyone point me to mingw > binaries we could use? That would be a simple one of update of the repo, I have them working, so could supply them. But then again; I'm a noop with compiler commandlines, so maybe it's safer to use binaries that Steve created :) > 4) Should we include both Lua 5.1 and Lua 5.2 binaries on Windows and > add flags to the installer asking which one the user want? (Possibly > both?) Primary question is how you want to proceed with Lua5.2 support. If this is the way, then adding it shouldn't be that big a deal. Thijs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness. Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the Employer Resources Portal http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
