Re: Packaging (was Re: Socket library?)
- From: Alek Paunov <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:43:36 +0300
On 04.10.2012 23:52, Francesco Abbate wrote:
But the point is that packages are useless if you want to embed a
software in your project. So my comment about luajit2 since it will be
often used to be embedded in a product instead of as a library.
This was the rationale why I was saying that a debian package for
luajit2 is not of paramount importance. It is useful only for projects
using it as a library and many are using it as an embedded component.
Possibly, these statements are true for the GSL Shell usage scenario
(besides the fact that library packages can provide -static subpackages
if you need the speedup of the static linking), but IMO, LuaJIT is an
nearly universal piece of software with lot of possible usage scenarios.
One of these is the domain of system tools. As instance, currently
significant part of the Fedora management is written in Python on top of
the classic and GIR style bindings. Python is very good, concise
language, but it is clear for anyone here, that the same bindings would
be an order of magnitude more complete, risk-free and easy for
maintenance in LuaJIT.
LuaJIT+FFI is just perfect for the system language role, but we need to
finish the packaging effort [1] and also to perform a little
popularization work to pave his more wide usage as one.
Another scenario - usage from other libraries: the Python module lupa
[2] (loads LuaJIT and transparently passes objects between the engines)
can not be packaged too - nobody provides libluajit.so.0 in Fedora
currently And as everyone knows, Fedora (as any other mainstream
distribution, AFAIK) do not allow library bundling .
Kind Regards,
Alek
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718681#c20
[2] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/lupa
Other related posts:
