lua-users home
lua-l archive

Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index] 

On 5/20/2014 8:42 PM, Andrew Starks wrote:

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
 > It seems that plain MinGW doesn't have `rm` or `install`
 executables
 > (or a `mkdir` that understands `-p`), so you really have to
 work hard
 > to make the install target work for MinGW ...
 We haven't got any complaints about this but perhaps we should
 just
 remove the mingw target and avoid noise?
MinGW is not really Windows and it is more than a compiler. It's
also a set of (not needed) shims for Lua.
Personally, I'd rather you got rid of that target and included a
decent Visual Studio 2010+ project file. There are 20 of us that
could write the instructions for a newbie to work from that and
those instructions would be about 4 steps.
I believe I have tried 'make install' on MSYS/MinGW and it worked fine. (Can't remember exactly, because normally I would not run 'make install' at all, due to juggling different versions.) It's only meaningful in MSYS. Users running just MinGW with no MSYS should just ignore 'make install'. 
I like the settings in luaconf.h, as they are. Windows has gone to
an assembly approach where each application gets its own sandbox
with its own copy of the DLLs that it needs. The current .h
file reflects this and it makes Lua look very cross-platform / smart.
If support for MinGW is needed, I'd suggest adjusting the makefile
to Do The Right Thing during make install when mingw was the
platform choice during make and leave luaconf.h alone. I don't
know how one could do this, however...

--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /