Re: Lua library bank? (Was: Ruby philosophy vs Lua philosophy

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Mar 9, 2013, at 14:16, "Peter Drahoš" <drahosp@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 Mar, 2013, at 20:33 , Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 2013, at 13:19, steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Perhaps my platforms and the required rocks just happen to have given
>> me that impression.
>>
>> I do think that luaBuild is kind of the other side of LR. They would
>> go nicely, integrated together.
>
> As I have already noted before. LuaDist and LuaRocks are not competing projects, just different implementations following different purpose. LuaDist builds everything and tracks everything it needs in its repository INCLUDING LuaRocks which it can painlessly install and run on Windows, Mac and Linux (it is even part of the binary batteries). In fact the systems are so close that ALL LuaDist modules could be packed as rocks and most "built-in" type rockspecs can be auto-tanslated to LuaDist.
>
> LuaRocks is fine, its the packages that use makefile, autotools and other inherently not-portable build systems that make it nearly impossible to translate fully into the Windows environment. If you want to blame LuaRocks for being hard to get running on Windows be assured its not its fault that the more complex packages will simply not have external dependencies or plainly fail to build.
>
> Throwing LuaBuild into the mix does not solve anything.
>
> pd

As I'm guilty of not sourcing my point, if you read my posts, you will
see that I say exactly the same thing as you, perhaps with more
needless suggested fixes. :)

Steve is right that perhaps Hisham doesn't want to be more
restrictive. Is that the case, or does he not want to be the one that
enforces restrictions or decides what they are?

-Andrew