Re: Difficulties with LuaRocks

[Hisham <hisham.hm@...>]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Javier Guerra Giraldez
<javier@guerrag.com> wrote:
> what i would like:
>
> - just installing the LuaRocks toolset shouldn't do _anything_ to my
> setup.  i guess that's true right now; but i have to state as a high
> priority

Check.

> - there should be an easy way to point to a rockspec and show a full
> list of dependencies, without installing anything.  it's ok to
> download lots of rockspecs to follow the whole tree.  extra points if
> it marks which packages are already on the _standard_ directories,
> that is, anything pointed by the current LUA_PATH.

We currently lack this feature, but it is useful and doable.

> - finally, the default non-local install shouldn't leave _any_ traces
> of LuaRocks in the runtime.  no new paths, no special rocks_require,
> nothing.   local Lua universes are a great optional feature, but if it
> needs any meddling with either the executable, or LUA_PATH, or pre-run
> fake scripts, then it should _NOT_ be the default.

If I understood you correctly, that is the case now.

> OTOH, this is not the first time i've heard that this is how it's
> supposed to work; maybe i have an old version, or some of my efforts
> to not allowing it to modify my setup were counterproductive.
>
> BTW, maybe it's not obvious from my rants; but i do know that LuaRocks
> are a big help for lots of users and it does lower the cost adopting
> Lua.  my own priorities are not those of most people, and i'm happy to
> manage my packages by hand.  my only complain is when a package
> assumes LuaRocks and doesn't provide any hint on how to install
> manually.

Thank you -- feedback by non-users stating why they don't use it is
very important. We know we won't ever be able to satisfy every
possible use case (because if we did, then we'd fail to satisfy those
who wanted something non-bloated :) ) but we try to improve the
LuaRocks experience as much as it's practical.

-- 
-- Hisham
http://hisham.hm/