Re: [Bug-zile] Lua Zile & its libraries

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Reuben,

On 8 Sep 2011, at 19:35, Reuben Thomas wrote:

> On 8 September 2011 11:51, Gary V. Vaughan <address@hidden> wrote:
>>  Another wart is that if you are not very intimately aware of what
>>  files are in the lua package directories, then the name-change from
>>  posix.so to posix_c.so leaves the old posix.so behind,
> 
> This is regrettable, but I'm standardizing on this format with
> luaposix, lcurses &c.

We might add a few lines to the install rule that at least show a big
ass warning to the installer when an old posix.$shrext file is visible
in the install directory to anticipate the greater proportion of errors
that the name change might provoke otherwise.

>>  /usr/local/share/lua/5.1/posix.lua:11: bad argument #2 to 'open' (bad flags)
> 
> Can you look into this? I really don't understand how this could go
> wrong for you and not for me, since it's not platform dependent. The
> only thing I can think of is that you are somehow getting a bad
> version of the (Lua) posix.creat (i.e. an old std.lua which still
> contains posix_ext.lua), because the error means that posix.open
> doesn't understand one of the oflags passed by posix.creat, which
> calls:
> 
>  return open (file, {"creat", "wronly", "trunc"}, mode)

My earlier O_RSYNC patch to luaposix was incomplete, I didn't read the
surrounding code when I blindly #ifdefed away that line.  Another pull-
request is on it's way, both to fix the bug I introduced, and forestall
future errors in the same class.

>> Agreed. It would be nicer still to have an ax_lua_module.m4 in the
>> autoconf-archive ;)
> 
> I think I have found the closest thing to a standard way of Lua
> modules reporting their versions (and it's not pretty, sadly, just
> widely-used by the Lua authors' own modules), so I'll write up
> something for that.

Great!

Cheers,
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)