| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 02:26:35PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Samstag, 23. März 2019, 22:23:27 CET schrieb William Hubbs: |
| 3 |
> > Hi all, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Soon I will be working on fixing up the state of dev-lang/lua, and there |
| 6 |
> > are a couple of things I want to mention. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > The first thing is liblua as a shared library. If you are using lua |
| 9 |
> > internally in a program, upstream strongly recommends not linking it |
| 10 |
> > this way; it is supposed to be statically linked into the executable. |
| 11 |
> > Because of this, and because of the amount of custom patching we do to |
| 12 |
> > maintain liblua as a shared library, I plan to stop creating the shared |
| 13 |
> > library. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Please dont. Static linking is a security nightmare. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I'd much rather consider removing the static library, and fix programs broken |
| 19 |
> by that. (No matter what silly opinions lua upstream has.) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Here is what upstream says, so let me know how you interpret it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
http://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/readme.html |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Also, there is this in our ebuilds: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
# Using dynamic linked lua is not recommended for performance |
| 28 |
# reasons. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.general/18519 |
| 29 |
# Mainly, this is of concern if your arch is poor with GPRs, like x86 |
| 30 |
# Note that this only affects the interpreter binary (named lua), not the lua |
| 31 |
# compiler (built statically) nor the lua libraries (both shared and static |
| 32 |
# are installed) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
It looks like the link is dead, so I don't have any idea what |
| 35 |
performance issues they are talking about. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
William |
Archives