Why bundling lua?

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Wed Apr 26 02:39:48 PDT 2006

On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 01:47 -0700, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 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.
> >>
> >> Ralf
> >
> > 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.

You'd have an additional build dependency just like you'd have when
dynamically linking. And you'd spare a sensible time when building.

> You're worried about code quality, security and bloat? Lua is the least of 
> our concerns there, lets fix apt itself first ;)
Well, have a closer look into lua -- Apt however is really dirty.


More information about the Apt-Rpm mailing list