RE: [ANN] tekUI 1.05

[Thijs Schreijer <thijs@...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> Behalf Of Hisham
> Sent: maandag 10 februari 2014 16:55
> To: Lua mailing list
> Subject: Re: [ANN] tekUI 1.05
> 
> On 10 February 2014 10:11, Thijs Schreijer <thijs@thijsschreijer.nl> wrote:
> >> > Did a quick check and the rock has a very weird format (the archive
> file).
> >> I get to the source files in the archive using this path:
> >> > \tekui-1.05-1.src.rock\tekui-1.05.tgz\\www\loona\tekui\htdocs\relea
> >> > ses
> >> > \tekui-1.05.tgz\tekui-1.05\
> >> >
> >> > Note the double backslash! There is a folder in the archive without
> >> > a
> >> name...
> >> >
> >> > Maybe something went wrong when packing the rock?
> >>
> >> Or rather with packing the archive. This is a path on my server that
> >> made it into the archive from Mercurial's archive function. I have
> >> now changed the packaging routine and exchanged the archive. (For
> >> testing, the issue should persist with the older archives.)
> >>
> >> - Timm
> >>
> >
> > Now the rockspec has a bad MD5 (which makes sense), and after removing
> that it complains it cannot find the 'tekui-1.05' directory in the archive.
> > The download now has the path:
> > tekui-1.05.gz\tekui-1.05.tgz\tekui-1.05\
> >
> > Not exactly sure, but luarocks handles .tar.gz fine, maybe it doesn't
> recognize .tgz ...
> 
> Looks like it is having trouble with the .tgz extension on Windows only
> (unpack_archive in luarocks/fs/win32/tools.lua) — it is using 7zip to gunzip
> and untar in two passes, but apparently that doesn't work.
> 
> -- Hisham

Hmmmm... I just tried 'sudo luarocks install tekui' on linux, which fetches and unpacks properly (but fails somewhere on x11 missings libs). So why does that work, if the .rock file gives me this path "tekui-1.05-1.src.rock\tekui-1.05.tgz\\www\loona\tekui\htdocs\releases\tekui-1.05.tgz\tekui-1.05\" inside the archive on windows?
On linux Luarocks should also fail on a path like that no? Or are the unpack utilities behaving differently?

Thijs