Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.0.13

[Hisham <h@...>]

On 17 April 2013 02:25, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/4/17 Hisham <h@hisham.hm>:
>> I'm glad to announce LuaRocks 2.0.13. LuaRocks is a package management
>> system for Lua modules. (For more information, please visit
>> http://luarocks.org )
>>
>> And as always, all kind of feedback is much appreciated.
>>
>
> [For those not in the mood: jump straight to the bottom SUMMARY.]
>
> I've never before really come to grips with LuaRocks: I've just used
> it blindly like "sudo luarocks install lpeg", the same way I use Cabal.

If you've been able to use it like that so far, I guess that's a
_very_ good thing :)

> The difference is, I know no Haskell, so I don't feel guilty about Cabal,
> whereas I'm about 25% of the way to being a Lua expert, so I do feel
> guilty about LuaRocks.
>
> So this announcement seemed like a welcome opportunity to get to
> learn LuaRocks properly, maybe package something I wrote as a rock.

...which would be awesome. :)

> I'm writing a blow-by-blow log since Hisham said "all kind of feedback
> is much appreciated."

Yes, that's the spirit!

> Ready. [OS is Ubuntu 12.4, not that it should matter for LuaRocks.
> For the non-Linux people: 'sudo' means that just for that one commmand
> I'm claiming superuser (administrator) status.]
>
> $ luarocks
> [about 60 lines of help text]
>
> -- Fine. I like that.
>
> $ sudo luarocks install luarocks
> Error: No results matching query were found.
>
> -- What's this? LuaRocks itself is not a rock? I can't believe it.

I know, I know. Steve and Alexander covered this in the replies. I see
this is moving higher and higher up in the wish list. Be sure it's not
falling on deaf ears.

> $ luarocks search
> Error: Enter name and version or use --all; see help.
>
> -- Actually help says nothing about search except "Query the LuaRocks
> -- servers." So telling me to see help is not really, well, helpful.
> -- But wait: even though the 60 lines of help does not say so, one can
> -- sometimes get more detailed help if you give a topic.

But wait, even though the 60 lines of help did mention that the 'help'
command is there, I just went and improved the error messages per your
suggestion! :)

https://github.com/keplerproject/luarocks/commit/99dcdc22319f38051087ab6929cfec170d784f0c

> $ luarocks help search
> [about 10 lines]
>
> -- That's better. Besides --all there are two other options.
>
> $ luarocks search
> [many lines]
> $ luarocks search | less
> [now I can examine them with a pager]
>
> -- It's true! LuaRocks is a large Lua program, of which new releases
> -- are published every now and then, but it is not itself a rock.
> -- You can't update it using the very tool designed for that purpose.
> -- Score: cabal 1, luarocks 0.

Cabal, Ну, погоди!

> -- Downloaded the tarball via Firefox ...
> $ tar -xzf luarocks-2.0.13.tar.gz
> $ cd luarocks-2.0.13/
> luarocks-2.0.13$ ls
> config.ld  COPYING     COPYING_lua  README.md  src
> configure  COPYING_7z  Makefile     rockspec   test
>
> -- It does look like a rock from here ...
>
> $ sudo luarocks build rockspec
> Error: Could not find a result named rockspec.

That rockspec is used if you install LuaRocks using "make bootstrap".
That is there, but it's still experimental. (So yeah, you see, we're
_almost_ there...)

> -- Let's just read that specialized help again, maybe I missed something.
> $ luarocks help build
>
> LuaRocks 2.0.12, a module deployment system for Lua
>
> NAME
>         luarocks build - Build/compile a rock.
>
> SYNOPSIS
>         luarocks build [--pack-binary-rock] {<rockspec>|<rock>|<name> [<version>]}
>
> DESCRIPTION
>         Build and install a rock, compiling its C parts if any.
>         Argument may be a rockspec file, a source rock file
>         or the name of a rock to be fetched from a repository.
>
>         If --pack-binary-rock is passed, the rock is not installed;
>         instead, a .rock file with the contents of compilation is produced
>         in the current directory.
>
> SEE ALSO
>         'luarocks help' for general options and configuration.
>
> -- It says: Argument may be a rockspec file. 'rockspec' is a rockspec
> -- file.
>
> -- At this point I get a deja vu feeling.
> $ ls ../luarocks*.gz
> ../luarocks-2.0.12.tar.gz
> ../luarocks-2.0.13.tar.gz
> ../luarocks-2.0.5.tar.gz
>
> -- I've been here twice before. Somehow I did get luarocks-2.0.12
> -- up and running. How did I manage that? Wait .. wasn't there
> -- a 'configure'?
>
> $ ./configure
> [about 15 lines]
> Done. You can now run 'make' to build.
>
> $ make
> [about 70 lines]
> Done. Type 'make install' to install into /usr/local.
>
> $ sudo make install
> [about 40 lines]
>
> $ luarocks
> [shows 2.0.13 now, and ends with:]
>    System configuration file: /usr/local/etc/luarocks/config-5.2.lua (ok)
>
> -- Right! Up and running. Now to read the docs, and make my own rock.
> $ less README.md
> [about 10 lines that would look good on a 110-column terminal]

Well, my non-maximized terminal has 144 columns. :) But there you go:

https://github.com/keplerproject/luarocks/commit/bbda1c528e020577c2351e7b7ef11f9b7de00e94

> -- Maybe those are installed locally somewhere? No.

Documentation is edited directly in the wiki. If anyone knows an easy
way to make a local dump from an online instance of Sputnik, I could
integrate that into my release-packaging script...

> 1. LuaRocks should be updatable by "luarocks install luarocks".
> 2. The main help screen should say "More detailed help available
>    by 'luarocks help <command>'.
> 3. It should not be necessary to visit the website. There should
>    be an INSTALL file giving the main points of both sets of
>    installation instructions, and selected documentation, in
>    particular "How to package your module as a rock" (which I have
>    so far not found on the side)

Home > Documentation > Tutorials: Creating a rock
http://www.luarocks.org/en/Creating_a_rock

>  should be installed locally.
>    E.g. /usr/local/doc/luarocks or /usr/local/lib/luarocks/doc.
> 4. BTW the site is not super-nice, for example I needed to say
>    "No Style" because with "Basic Page Style" the lines do not
>    wrap.

They don't!? They do here in Firefox...

> To be continued.

Eagerly waiting for the next chapter! See you there and thanks for
giving a try and taking detailed UX notes. It's much appreciated.

-- Hisham
http://luarocks.org/