On 13 June 2011 12:29, Lorenzo Donati<lorenzodonatibz@interfree.it> wrote:
The problem for me is that I, ahem, don't really "install" software in the
traditional sense.
Since I have to work on many different machines (often almost completely out
of my control), only with very limited privileges, I carry "my system" with
me on a portable usb HD. So I need software that can be unzipped and run and
that could be fitted into my software hierarchy with little more than some
env var setting and config file hacking.
LuaRocks is ideal then: either its self-contained (for truly portable
deployment) or per-user (for software that can be "fitted in" to a
hierarchy) could be used.
Last time I checked, LuaRocks seemed too complex a system and too focussed
on Lua to be useful for my work model.
I don't understand either criticism here.
Whether LuaRocks is "too
complex" is irrelevant, it's whether it can be made to do what you
want. A complex system is probably more likely on average to have the
functionality you want, and LuaRocks certainly does. And LuaRocks is
by definition focussed on Lua, but why is that a problem? If you want
to be able to deploy Lua software portably, LuaRocks is an invaluable
aid, as it solves the problem simultaneously for all rocks. So, if you
want Lua software in your environment, LuaRocks is going to be useful;
if you're not programming in Lua, then of course it won't be.
