[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Best practices on writing rockspecs for uncommon libraries
- From: Alexander Gladysh <agladysh@...>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:06:41 +0300
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:33, Peter Drahoš <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Alexander Gladysh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> I want to create a rockspec for bindings for an uncommon library
>> (namely — hiredis: https://github.com/antirez/hiredis). My primary
>> target is Ubuntu (and compatible OSes). I will not able to support OS
>> X or Windows deployment for my rockspec.
>> The library in question is absent in Ubuntu repository, and, thus, is
>> likely to be missing on user machines.
>> I can bundle hiredis source code with the rockspec.
>> However, I do not want to link hiredis statically to my C module —
>> this does not seem neat enough. And, as far as I remember, Luarocks
>> would not let me to build a separate libhiredis.so.
>> What options do I have?
> For LuaRocks you should build a static module. It was not designed to handle
> dependencies on libraries, certainly not in cross platform manner. However
> this is exactly what LuaDist does well (it builds everything from
While the rockspec and the module would be open-source, I create them
for my production needs in the first place. I'm not ready to add
LuaDist as a dependency to my production machines.
If I will be considering an investment into a change of deployment
strategy I would rather try switching to Debian packages. LuaRocks
development is, sadly, too sluggish (no disrespect to the current
maintainers — this is my problem, not theirs).