On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 12:24:26PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> [2019-03-23 16:23:27] William Hubbs:
> > The first thing is liblua as a shared library. If you are using lua
> > internally in a program, upstream strongly recommends not linking it
> > this way; it is supposed to be statically linked into the executable.
> > Because of this, and because of the amount of custom patching we do to
> > maintain liblua as a shared library, I plan to stop creating the shared
> > library.
> 
> Pretty sure removing the shared version of liblua will cause a large
> amount of patching to be done in a lot of software that may not support
> static linking out of the box.

I will look into this, but I think you are talking about build systems
that don't read pkgconfig files or something similar.

> 
> > I'm a bit undecided still about slotting lua. I'm sure we
> > need subslots so we can force rebuilds when new lua releases enter the
> > tree. However, I'm still unsure whether we need slots. I don't know of
> > many things in the tree that are locked to a specific version
> > of lua (there is only one package based on an irc conversation I
> > had this week).
> > Does anyone have any thoughts? Are there more packages in the tree that
> > are locked to a specific version of lua?
> 
> There should be slotting of lua, for example in the few programs that
> I know will need it:
> 
> - app-editors/vis::{lua,lanodanOverlay}: Requires >=lua-5.2
>       does not support luajit (incomplete 5.2 compatibility)

This example isn't really a slot, just a lower bound. This is pretty
common.
 
> - media-video/mpv: requires lua:5.2 or luajit
>       doesn’t seems to plan supporting 5.3[1]

This is more concerning, so I'll take a look at it.

> 
> Also the lua overlay, which I would highly recommend using as a base
> has a slotted version of lua, instead of extending SLOT="0".

There were many concerns about lua.eclass in the overlay when it was
presented here for inclusion in the tree, and it was never presented
again [1]. I also spoke with the previous maintainer of dev-lang/lua and
he was concerned about it.

William

[1] 
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/befce09046d0c80e3cbbee543a378f59

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to