Re: any easy 'batteries-included' way of installing Lua on linux (ubuntu to be specific)

[Jayanth Acharya <jayachar88@...>]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Enrico Tassi <gareuselesinge@libero.it> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 07:18:54PM +0000, Matthew Wild wrote:
>> On 3 March 2011 19:07, Jayanth Acharya <jayachar88@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:47 PM, steve donovan
>> > Okay... but is there anything like a "golden package of rocks" /
>> > "extensions" -- something that most developers use, i.e. most
>> > developers use for the common purpose (e.g. parsing XML, templating,
>> > bit-operations etc.). Going through the rocks catalog for instance, I
>> > found that there are several of those, for same purpose, so how do I
>> > pick & choose. Do I stick to the ones supplied by Ubuntu repos, or go
>> > beyond, and if I do -- which ones ??
>
> I tried not to put too many duplicates in the Debian archive, thus you
> will not find many alternatives there. Of course you can use luarocks to
> get any library that is not packaged.

The set of packages available seem good for starts.

However, having gone through the rock catalog, identifying what-all I
might be interested in, here is a list that is not available on Ubuntu
as apt packages....
Alien, bit32, CGILua, ConcurrentLua, Lanes, config, HTK, lbase64,
lpack, tamales, tethys, xssfilter, Loop, lpc, lrandom, lposix,
lua-espeak, ReCaptcha, sputnik, sociallua, lua-imlib2, lua-spore...
amongst few others.

Is it because they are not so popular / commonly used, or because they
not well maintained and/or not very stable / depracated, or because
the set which is available already has the alternatives ?

> The point of not having a meta-package depending a standard set of
> libraries is that there is no such standard set, and this is IMO one of
> the biggest problems of this technology (Lua I mean, not your linux
> distribution).
>


cheers,
Jay