On 4 April 2013 13:59, steve donovan <steve.j.dono...@gmail.com> wrote: > However, the old runtime still has life in it because the binary Windows > rocks in the repo are built against it. So it's still best for the > compiler-free.
There are not that many binary rocks there, and many of the ones available are outdated too. So I wouldn't restrict myself because of them. 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? 2) Should we include mingw binaries instead? 3) If the answer to question 2 is "yes", can anyone point me to mingw binaries we could use? 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?) -- Hisham http://hisham.hm/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
