On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:57:52 +0100 Enrico Tassi
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
