Jeremie Courreges-Anglas writes:
> j...@wxcvbn.org (Jeremie Courreges-Anglas) writes:
>
>> Some time ago I took a look at hooking lua53 flavors in the ports that
>> support it. It turned out that some ports were already broken with
>> particular versions of lua (the most common
j...@wxcvbn.org (Jeremie Courreges-Anglas) writes:
> Some time ago I took a look at hooking lua53 flavors in the ports that
> support it. It turned out that some ports were already broken with
> particular versions of lua (the most common errors are missing functions
> at dlopen time, and
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
wrote:
>
> The switch to explicit FLAVORS is almost complete, there are two
> remaining ports, luaposix and lualdoc.
>
> lualdoc is packaged as a library that supports flavors, but afaik it is
> a standalone tool. Debian
The switch to explicit FLAVORS is almost complete, there are two
remaining ports, luaposix and lualdoc.
lualdoc is packaged as a library that supports flavors, but afaik it is
a standalone tool. Debian for example packages it as "lua-ldoc", not
"lua5.1-ldoc".
Here's a diff to switch it to a
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 05:42:00PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> Some time ago I took a look at hooking lua53 flavors in the ports that
> support it. It turned out that some ports were already broken with
> particular versions of lua (the most common errors are missing functions
> at
Some time ago I took a look at hooking lua53 flavors in the ports that
support it. It turned out that some ports were already broken with
particular versions of lua (the most common errors are missing functions
at dlopen time, and module() errors), yet they were hooked up.
So it's not just