On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:57:52 +0100 Enrico Tassi <gareuselesi...@debian.org> wrote: > Hello, Hello,
> looks like you use 'sandbox' as the identifier of the Lua > version. Note that 5.1 and 5.2, for example, are different, > incompatible, languages. Yes. > Will Lua sandbox stay compatible with 5.1 only? Yes. Upstream want to stick on 5.1 API [1]. [1]: https://github.com/mozilla-services/lua_sandbox/issues/142#issuecomment-241044425 > Shouldn't we > call it sanbox5.1 or something like that? As upstream don't plan to support any later version, I would say "no". And even if they do in the future, we can use a versioned name at that time. > Also, is it a drop in > replacement for 5.1 (with extra features)? Will there be Lua > packages working only on sandbox (to motivate the "sanbox" label)? No. lua-systemd is buildable on any lua (working also on 5.2 and 5.3). And the diff between lua5.1 and luasandbox is small. I see: - adding math.erf and math.erfc functions - coroutine in its own luaopen (you need "require 'coroutine'") - sandboxing: i.e package.path and pakage.cpath are hidden, as .preload .loadlib and others. Also modules can be disabled - more strftime specifiers - some removals: print.c - ... and > E.g. is the new systemd related package needing sandbox? No. There is an exception to this rule: lua-cjson. We'll need a different source package for it. See [2]. [2]: https://github.com/mpx/lua-cjson/compare/master...trink:heka > Best > -- > Enrico Tassi > Cheers Mathieu Parent
