[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Fwd: LuaRocks, Ease of Use
- From: steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 19:45:43 +0200
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Henning Diedrich <email@example.com> wrote:
> Yes, `pcall(require, "luarocks.require")`
That's quite a tricky statement to have to use if you are beginning!
LuaRocks 2 no longer needs luarocks.require unless the package has
been installed to a per-user local rocks tree.
> The blame falls to the wrong people in any case, even when on those who
> contribute modules but don't have opportunity to test exceedingly.
It is a big issue, even with virtual machines, to get access to
different operating systems. Naturally we've spoken about providing
test servers but this is not an easy thing to organize and requires
> If there was, adding a line displayed at the end of every `luarocks install
> saying "Contribute now by doing luarocks test-all and send results to ..."
> be the right thing to garner support from users = beneficiaries.
That's exactly it; when your new module is loaded, you want to know if
it is working properly. I know Alexander feels the same way.
> Which lay beyond my efforts of finding out obviously. I'd opt for a brief
> hint to that option to be displayed if things fail. Failure, even for
That makes sense - the tool knows that there has been a failure, and
should suggest some options.
> out, specifically on fixing flags any time. There will always be the next
> chaos after shared and 32/64 bit have been settled.
That's for sure! Considering the range of platforms that LR targets,
it does well at its job.