[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua Ecosystem
- From: "Pierre Chapuis" <catwell@...>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:47:37 +0100
> 2013/11/26 Sean Conner <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> 1. Is there any moderation whatsoever, or can any idiot,
> con man or whoever upload something and suddenly
> it's got rock status?
Currently, no, there is moderation. Unlike most other
languages, to submit a rock, you notify a mailing list
and Hisham adds it to the repository.
> 2. Once I have uploaded a rock, is there any way that
> someone who is not me can upload something claiming
> to be a newer version of it?
No, see above.
> 3. Is there any mechanism in place where users can give
> just +1 and -1 feedback?
No. Well, +1 is basically what I am doing with
https://lua-toolbox.com/ :) And Hisham and me were
discussing feeding the results back into LuaRocks.
I don't really want -1, I think most people wouldn't use
it and it could result in pointless fights if used.
> 4. Would it be utterly and completely impractical to impose
> certain minimal standardizations, e.g.
> - require "module" always returns something callable
> - require "module" "_SIGNATURE" returns a unique
> string that is automatically allocated when that version
> of the rock is uploaded.
I don't think this is a good idea. Requiring require
to return *something* (usually a table), why not.
I think the signature thing would be better dealt with
in LuaRocks itself. You can atually require parts of
LuaRocks in your program if you want, I do it in
Lua Toolbox .
But modifying the module itself is not a great idea IMO.
A design principle of the recent versions of LuaRocks is
that you can use it just to install modules and have it
stay out of the way after that.