[LEGO <luis.ontanon@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/24/06, W. Borgert <debacle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting LEGO <luis.ontanon@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > With a some help from others I could add a --with-lua option to
> > ./configure but we will then have yet another library dependency which
> > means that on unix people will have to install lua by thenselves to
> > have it enabled.
>
> So what? Most Linux/UNIX users will install a package and the
> dependencies are just pulled in automatically (at least with
> APT and similar tools).
>
> > Been the statically linked plugin just ~ 300K I thought It would be
> > fine to just have it in.
>
> What if there is a bug, e.g. a security problem, in lua? If
> the lua library is dynamically linked, the  Linux distributors
> have to fix the lua package and users have to download 300K.
> If it's statically linked, the distributor may not even know
> they have to fix ethereal because of a lua problem. In the end
> the user has to download ~6M.
>
> So, please, take the effort and realise the --with-lua switch.
> Linux distributors and users will be thankful! You can still
> fallback to your own lua directory, if the switch is not used.

I understand that and agree. That's what we are going to do.

> Cheers, WB
>
> Btw: I would be very much interested in a Python binding :-) Esp.
> because Python easily adopts to XML, SQL, Web stuff, CORBA, etc.

Months ago I tried to understand what needed to be done to get python
in the picture (even if I personally dislike python I agree it would
had been a much richer language) , but unfortunatelly the docs weren't
much clear (at least for me) so I just didn't. Later on I found about
lua and noticed that integration would have been straightforward. And
that's preetymuch why it is Lua.

--
This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself.
-- Marshall McLuhan