Any idea why they differ? On pure-darwin, lua works fine.

No, this commit changes lua's pkg-config file to correctly build packages that depend on lua

Makes sense!

Makes sense but is it needed in nix? What problem did you have?

"ld: library not found for -llua" which makes sense since the pkg-config file instructs users to link with liblua.dylib which does not exist.

@joelteon not sure, but In principle I'd make liblua.dylib a symlink like it's done on linux.

Yeah, not clear why it isn't done automatically. Perhaps just an upstream
bug? It's not as if -llua would work outside of Nix either, and it's pretty
rare to see people explicitly putting versions in their library parameters.

On Thursday, February 12, 2015, lethalman notifications@github.com wrote:

@joelteon https://github.com/joelteon not sure, but In principle I'd
make liblua.dylib a symlink like it's done on linux.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6311 (comment).

The lua build system produces non-numbered object files on Linux, just not on Darwin.

@joelteon I understand that it differs; mostly just trying to get at "why is it different"/"does it need to be"? For example, let's say I write a library down the line that links against lua: do I need to always use pkg-config? Do I need to be aware of numbers on my dylib? I'm pretty sure most things link against it just with -llua, and I'd say that if the darwin build of lua doesn't produce something that can work with that, it's probably broken.

Another way to look at it is that version numbers of any sort don't really belong in a derivation's output, at least not in a way that affects functionality.

What's holding this back from being merged?

Is this still an issue on Darwin ? Rebase this branch on top of master gives me 0 commits.

@pikajude ping

This was also done in 330836a but then reverted in c7ed090 without explanation.

What's up with this? @copumpkin

Is this still relevant?

Ugh, it seems so:

-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 190576 Jan  1  1970 liblua.5.2.3.dylib
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     13 Jan  1  1970 liblua.dylib -> liblua..dylib
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     18 Jan  1  1970 liblua..dylib -> liblua.5.2.3.dylib
dr-xr-xr-x 1 root root     12 Jan  1  1970 pkgconfig

Actually, I think it's not required anymore as liblua.dylib symlink resolves OK, even though it's not perfect.

The symlink names should be OK after d56e596.

Looks good! (tested on Darwin)