{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/luvit/luvit/issues/789","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/luvit/luvit/issues/789/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/luvit/luvit/issues/789/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/luvit/luvit/issues/789/events","html_url":"https://github.com/luvit/luvit/issues/789","id":98601905,"number":789,"title":"luvit executable vs luvit bundle performance","user":{"login":"jcmoore","id":2549335,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2549335?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcmoore","html_url":"https://github.com/jcmoore","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcmoore/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcmoore/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcmoore/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcmoore/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcmoore/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcmoore/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcmoore/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcmoore/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jcmoore/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":9,"created_at":"2015-08-02T11:00:50Z","updated_at":"2015-08-11T16:06:35Z","closed_at":"2015-08-05T20:31:35Z","body":"I'm interested in running luvit in docker containers based from alpine linux (due to it's small image size/footprint -- https://github.com/gliderlabs/docker-alpine).\r\n\r\nThe images I've built (see https://gist.github.com/jcmoore/4a8eb89a98b7d95b5b83#file-readme-sh-L2 if maybe you're interested in officially supporting alpine) only include the luvi regular executable and the .zip bundles for luvit and lit.  I'm planning to run luvit like so -- https://gist.github.com/jcmoore/4a8eb89a98b7d95b5b83#file-luvit-sh-L2 -- but I'm wondering what the performance implications are of running it this way instead of through an executable (from `lit make`).  Is the performance going to be impacted during the life of process or does compiling with lit just make luvit load faster initially?"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/luvit/luvit/issues/comments/129949762","html_url":"https://github.com/luvit/luvit/issues/789#issuecomment-129949762","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/luvit/luvit/issues/789","id":129949762,"user":{"login":"creationix","id":89353,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/89353?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/creationix","html_url":"https://github.com/creationix","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/creationix/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/creationix/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/creationix/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/creationix/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/creationix/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/creationix/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/creationix/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/creationix/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/creationix/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-08-11T16:06:35Z","updated_at":"2015-08-11T16:06:35Z","body":"No, `make tiny` doesn't include openssl at all.  You'll have to pass in the Cmake options directly instead of using the makefile.\r\nhttps://github.com/luvit/luvi/blob/master/Makefile#L67\r\nhttps://github.com/luvit/luvi/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt#L40-L55"}}