Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
--- Comment #5 from Adam Goode <adam(a)spicenitz.org> 2010-02-23 01:25:29 EST ---
Hmm. I think the correct thing to do is to get the necessary changes merged
back into luasocket. I am not sure how easy it would be to get a new release of
luasocket with these changes, there hasn't been a release in a while. Also, I
am not sure how safe it would be for luasec to require "socket.core", because
that would really tie luasec to the internals of the C interfaces. (It would
probably be ok.)
It looks like only a tiny amount of changes would be necessary. io.h, socket.h,
Possibly it would make sense to merge luasocket and luasec together into one
package at some point. luasocket is lacking IPv6, and this would require a new
luasocket, so maybe it could just include luasec all together.
Practially speaking, if we want to move forward with luasec and prosody in
Fedora soon, probably we should try to get a FESCO exemption for luasec's
duplicate code from luasocket and then get a new luasocket/luasec released
upstream that fixes these problems. Then IPv6 can be next.
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.