Re: symlink not supported ?
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:21 am
Oh god, it has started. Quick, everyone leave before the thread explodes with an interesting but off-topic discussion!
I don't see why the user would want to turn off sandboxing themselves.anjo wrote:*downloads sandboxed .love*BlackBulletIV wrote:As for sandboxing, I personally think that folders and merged executables should have full rights, only to have their rights governed by the OS. This would make LOVE a good game development platform. But when it comes to a .love, sandboxing should be started; this makes LOVE a good game platform.
*merges .love into executable*
You're right. I don't want security for now, I just want symlink supportRobin wrote:Oh god, it has started. Quick, everyone leave before the thread explodes with an interesting but off-topic discussion!
What I use, it's a bit of a hack:TsT wrote:You're right. I don't want security for now, I just want symlink support
Code: Select all
package.path = package.path .. ";../common/?.lua"
Oh it seems a good and beautiful workaround ! Thanks RobinRobin wrote:What I use, it's a bit of a hack:Code: Select all
package.path = package.path .. ";../common/?.lua"
This is for mainly for development. The release process is different and you can not forget so much libsRobin wrote:You then only need to remember to copy the common/ directory into the game dir when distributing your game.
Hey that's a pretty cool hack!Robin wrote:What I use, it's a bit of a hack:TsT wrote:You're right. I don't want security for now, I just want symlink support(At the start of main.lua.)Code: Select all
package.path = package.path .. ";../common/?.lua"
Then you can place the shared libs in ../common/. You then only need to remember to copy the common/ directory into the game dir when distributing your game.