Re: Proposal: smartlua

[Steve Litt <slitt@...>]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:23:47 +0200
steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Peter Drahoš <drahosp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >pack applications based on it into a installer. LuaDist already does
> >fill this role as you can simply pack the deployment directory with
> >your application and copy it to a new machine (that is binary
> >compatible).
> 
> Thinking about the options, it does seem clear that all the machinery
> already exists - the building, the dependency management, the
> distribution system.   And anything that is half as flexible as LD or
> LR is going to need (rock)specs, manifests, the whole party.  Part of
> the problem is perception - people think that LuaRocks is for hardcore
> people who only use Unix, and LuaDist is for people who find LuaRocks
> too easy.
> 
> But LuaDist has basically managed to do a consistent clean build that
> can replace Lua for Windows - zipfiles are available for a new 'Lua
> with Batteries'.  It is (in fact) time to retire Lua for Windows with
> its silly MSVC 2005 runtime requirement, and move on.
> 
> So the solution probably already exists, it just needs popularizing
> and a few scripts to make it more accessible.

Hey Steve,

Can this smartlua's defaults be set so that a programmer in braindead
mode can intuitively use it to produce something a user in braindead
mode can install?

I might be available to document smartlua if it happens.

Thanks,

SteveT

Steve Litt                *  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance