Why bundling lua?
pmatilai at laiskiainen.org
Wed Apr 26 01:47:25 PDT 2006
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Gary Greene wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 April 2006 02:06 am, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:34 -0400, Gary Greene wrote:
>>> Regardless of this decision will there be an option to disable the
>>> internal lua and allow the packager / site admin to use their own system
>>> lua if possible?
>> Implementing it would be trivial (actually I have it pending), but
>> you've read Panu's decision. His decision leaves no room for discussion,
>> he wants to (ab-) use his powers, no matter how wise or unwise his
>> decision might be technically.
> I agree on you points with this as I really don't want apt to get
> bloated size wise due to static linking. Besides, PhoeNUX ships the
> aforementioned extensions, so why should we be penalised for the
> mistakes of other less competent packagers?
Oh but the thing is that Lua cannot be dynamically linked, this is not apt
specific issue. So you "bloat" apt just as much if you link it against
"system" Lua or not.
If dynamic linking was possible, maybe my opinion would be different.
Maybe if we were just introducing the lua extensions, my opinion about
bundling it might be different. But it's already there, it costs very
little IMHO to have it there and the alternative doesn't by anything
except potentially more problems in my view.
You're worried about code quality, security and bloat? Lua is the least of
our concerns there, lets fix apt itself first ;)
- Panu -
More information about the Apt-Rpm