Re: Best practices on writing rockspecs for uncommon libraries

[Alexander Gladysh <agladysh@...>]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 06:15, Hisham <hisham.hm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Alexander Gladysh <agladysh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:33, Peter Drahoš <drahosp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Alexander Gladysh <agladysh@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>> 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).

> No offense taken. Like it was said, if it's practical, linking the
> library statically is a fine option for use with LuaRocks.

OK.

> Due to
> reasons including our limited development resources, LuaRocks will
> stick at what it knows best: being a simple option for building Lua
> modules and being a deployment tool for rocks.

Note that I did not suggest doing otherwise.

>  For environments where
> you don't have the luxury of native system packages for external
> dependencies, LuaDist is an option for providing external dependencies
> in a cross-platform manner.

OK.

> I don't know if you're set into using either an all-LuaRocks or
> all-Debian deployment strategy, but I would consider using LuaRocks
> for Lua modules and Debian packages for non-Lua dependencies to be a
> sensible strategy.

That is reasonable — especially since it does not require me to
overhaul existing code.

For now I will bundle hiredis with the rock. If someone will create a
debian package for it, poke me, I will fix the rockspec. (At some
not-too-near point in the future I may create such package myself, but
don't count on it.)

Thanks,
Alexander.