[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Steve Donovan's ldoc: recognized function declaration formats and possible bug
- From: Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@...>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:29:58 +0200
On 13/06/2011 12.30, Reuben Thomas wrote:
Sorry, probably I simplified the wording too much. I don't know LuaRocks
so much to state it is not possible to customize the installation or
such things (so, no critique meant).
On 13 June 2011 11:25, Lorenzo Donati<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
because I try luadoc, but its prerequistes didn't suit me: it depends on
LuaLogging which (IIRC) in turn required LuaRocks, and this latter is a big
"no no" for me (I need and want to have full control on the sw installation
on my system).
LuaRocks does give you full control: you can install rocks per-system,
per-user, or completely self-contained (e.g. per-application). So
there's no need to avoid it for this reason.
The problem for me is that I, ahem, don't really "install" software in
the traditional sense.
Since I have to work on many different machines (often almost completely
out of my control), only with very limited privileges, I carry "my
system" with me on a portable usb HD. So I need software that can be
unzipped and run and that could be fitted into my software hierarchy
with little more than some env var setting and config file hacking.
If their license allows it, I even write some crude "portabilization"
scripts for software that need an installation (e.g., writes to the
registry), to backup and restore their configuration automatically.
Last time I checked, LuaRocks seemed too complex a system and too
focussed on Lua to be useful for my work model.