[Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The bugs are listed here:

http://www.lua.org/bugs.html

5.2.3 was only released this past December, but 5.2.2 has been out since 2012.

What do you mean by "we have a 5.2.1 library for Windows but not a 5.2.3 one"? Do you mean from some pre-built binary repository somewhere?

-hadriel

On Mar 28, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

2014-03-28 16:02 GMT+01:00 Bálint Réczey <balint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

+1
The Debian packages use Lua since 1.10.2-2 without any problem.

Cheers,
Balint

2014-03-28 15:45 GMT+01:00 Nakayama Kenjiro <nakayamakenjiro@xxxxxxxxx>:

> +1
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Howdy,
>> Is there any reason not to make wireshark 1.11.x and beyond only use Lua
>> 5.2?  Right now the automated builds are getting built with 5.1.
>>
>> There's very little difference to end users (i.e., older scripts should
>> continue to work)... but for the C-code it's a lot more painful to have to
>> continue to handle both Lua versions, and it takes longer to test, fix, etc.
>> There's no real advantage to supporting both at this point, afaik.  There
>> was back when Lua 5.2 was new and buggy, but 5.2 has been out since 2011.
>>
>> -hadriel

Is 5.2.3 a must have? Right now we have a 5.2.1 library for Windows (I'm trying to build with it as we speak) but not a 5.2.3 one.

Pascal.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
            mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe