Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 3.0.0beta1 for Unix

[Hugo Musso Gualandi <hgualandi@...>]

It is great to hear that Luarocks 3.0 is finally arriving!

I'd like to offer some feedback based on my experience playing with
Luarocks 3.0 for a couple of minutes but not doing anything serious
with it yet.

First thing: after a some time installing Luarocks via my distro's
package manager I had forgotten how to install it by hand. To my
confusion, I failed to find instructions on the README or an INSTALL
file explaining what to do. Eventually I fell back on my instincts and
tried "./configure --help", which worked. It was only after I was
already using Luarocks 3.0 for a while that I did I notice that the
info I needed was there all along, in the last sentence of the README
file. I suppose that my years of reading Wikipedia tricked me into
thinking that the blue "Unix" link there would have linked to
information about the operating system instead of linking to http://lua
rocks.org/en/Installation_instructions_for_Unix. I wonder if this could
have been more blunt, for people like me :)

While we are talking about installation, is the "Making a self-
contained installation" still relevant now that we have "luarocks
init"?

Second thing: what is the rule that Luarocks uses to detect the
currently installed Lua version? I expected it would pick /usr/bin/lua
(5.3) but by default it chose /usr/bin/luajit instead. I had to use
"./configure --lua-version=5.3" to override that decision

My third is point a workflow question: Right now I have Luarocks
isntalled to /usr/bin (from the package manager) and I install many
packages with  "luarocks install --local". I have a line in my bashrc
that uses "luarocks --path" to set the necessary environment variables.
Is this obsolete in Luarocks 3.0 or should I continue doing the same
thing?

The final thing that I noticed that if I don't fill in the rockspec
template that "luarocks init" creates then when I run "luarocks build"
then luarocks will hapilly point out that the license is "*** please
specify a license ***". Would it be possible for it to know that the
license is actually "unspecified"?

-- Hugo