On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Scott Morgan <bl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > I think this is what LuaRocks is for, and most the drivers have > rockspecs.
Anything non-trivial will use a makefile, and so a rock is only as good as its makefile. There's an art to making portable makefiles. > You'll never get an easy single command Windows compile > though, better left for the Lua for Windows distribution. If only it was that simple. The awkward fact is that LfW does very little of its own building, we know about it and want to achieve 'build-the-world' nirvana. When we are tired of supporting MSVC 2005 (!) binaries we can then move onto GCC as a standard. LuaDist may offer that flexibility, with its unapologetic CMake-driven approach, although it's very new and awkward. However, to get back to the subject, msbuild has got quite sophisticated these days. The main problem with Windows binaries is the run-time dependencies. steve d. _______________________________________________ Kepler-Project mailing list Kepler-Project@lists.luaforge.net http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kepler-project http://www.keplerproject.org/
