Re: Lua Distributions and Package Management

[steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>]

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@gmx.net> wrote:
> I can understand that some people don't want to install the resulting files
> in the rocks tree, but that can be achieved simply with a new luarocks
> subcommand (something like `luarocks make` which doesn't check/download
> dependencies and moves the resulting files into a subdirectory of the source
> directory[*] instead of installing into the rocks tree).

A good idea. Things get better now since LR can upgrade itself, at
least on Unix.

> Maybe we could also provide a standalone script (or module) that is easier
> to install than luarocks (maybe some amalgamation of the necessary luarocks
> source files packaged as a single standalone module/script), but that's as
> far as I would go.

That's a big job, and feels like a fragmenting move .... better to use
a tool specialized in building (I naturally like Lake for this ;)) and
a tool specialized for installing.

Ordinary users would be more happy if all the common modules were
already built as binaries for their platform, applies to both Windows
and OS X I think.  Then LR is a good delivery vehicle.  LuaDist has an
edge here, since it's an ambitious 'build-the-world' system and
binaries come directly out of the process, which is why we would
recommend the LD batteries for no-fuss installations.  The two systems
aren't necessarily in competition and could (and should) be harmonized
at some point.

steve d.