Re: [ANN] hererocks 0.10.0 - Lua/LuaRocks installation script

Hi,

I'm already working on making luaver available on shells other than bash and also adding Mac OSX support.

I agree that hererocks and luaver aim for similar goals.

> Basically, use hererocks as a build system, passing options for compatibility flags, etc. to it from luaver.

It is a nice idea. However, I think it will complicate things. Both, from a user's and a developer's point of view.

I'm not sure whether it would be right to ask the user to download and set up both(even if one installation installs the other).

'hererocks' and 'luaver' solve the same problem by working differently. I think it would be better not to mix the two and let the user decide which one is best for his use case.

Regards,

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Peter Melnichenko <mpeterval@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Hisham <h@hisham.hm> wrote:
> One thing I'd like to ask Peter and Dhaval is about the possibilities
> of cooperation between hererocks and luaver development. They seem to
> aim for similar (identical?) goals. The bash dependency seems
> "lighter" than Python [*], but hererocks looks currently more
> featureful (e.g. supporting various shells).

This was discussed a bit in the first luaver announcement thread.
IMO the natural way for these projects to cooperate would be to have
luaver manage environments created by hererocks. Basically, use
hererocks as a build system, passing options for compatibility flags, etc.
to it from luaver. Given that hererocks has no dependencies outside
of Python standard library it should be possible for luaver to bundle
it without too much trouble.

Python is "heavy" but with the amount of patching hererocks does it
won't be easy
to implement it in bash; should be possible using awk, sed, etc. a lot.
Rewriting it in batch is not something I won't to try however, so, as I
like having Windows support, Python will stay as the implementation language.

-- Peter

Dhaval Kapil

dhavalkapil.com