[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 3.0.4
- From: Hisham <h@...>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:00:14 -0300
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 03:21, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Op Wo., 31 Okt. 2018 om 01:57 het Hisham <h@hisham.hm> geskryf:
>
> > This is a quick announcement that version 3.0.4 of LuaRocks, the Lua
> > package manager, has been tagged and uploaded to the usual locations.
> > You can find all links at https://luarocks.org — source packages for
> > all supported platforms and binaries for Windows and Linux x86-64 are
> > available.
>
> This is not criticism, it's just a comment from a Lua user, one that
> has never lamented Lua's lack of a Python-like ecosystem.
>
> What I miss most about version 3 is a seamless transition from version
> 2.2. I understand that 'luarocks install luarocks' cannot work,
> building from source has so far also eluded me, but a binary for Linux
> x86-64 might be painless, I hoped.
>
> I unzipped it into a directory not in $PATH, and tried
>
> $ /usr/local/src/PACKAGES/luarocks-3.0.4-linux-x86_64/luarocks list
>
> Rocks installed for Lua 5.3
> ---------------------------
> $
Looking at the bright side, I'm happy that the binary did run in your
system without any library clashes. :)
> I.e. it does not find my 33 existing rocks.
Where are they installed? LuaRocks 3 dropped default support for
unversioned rocks trees (which caused problems for users with multiple
Lua versions), so if the path looks like /usr/lib/luarocks/rocks, it
needs to be converted to /usr/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.x (for the proper
Lua version).
Auto-converting is risky because users may have customizations in
their config files. But I think adding a warning message when an
unversion lib/luarocks/rocks dir is found would be a big improvement.
If your rocks tree lives at /usr/local/lib/luarocks/rocks or
$HOME/.luarocks/rocks, I believe simply renaming the "rocks" directory
to "rocks-5.3" should make LuaRocks 3 pick it up. Could you give that
a try? If it doesn't work, reverting will be safe and nothing will
break in your LR2 install.
> There is a subtle difference (extra whitespace) in where they say the
> configution file is.
This is true, but this is textual output meant for users to read, not
scripts. Scripts should use `luarocks config --system-config` to get
that information, and `luarocks config` to inspect the current active
LuaRocks configuration.
> Luarocks 2.2.1-2 says
> System: /usr/local/etc/luarocks/config-5.3.lua (ok)
>
> Luarocks 3.0.4 says:
> System : /usr/local/etc/luarocks/config-5.3.lua (ok)
Out of curiosity, what are the contents of
/usr/local/etc/luarocks/config-5.3.lua ?
> BTW the "After installation, a default config file called config.lua
> will be installed at the directory defined by --sysconfdir." seems not
> to apply to luarocks 3.0.4
Is this from https://github.com/luarocks/luarocks/wiki/Installation-instructions-for-Unix
? The --sysconfdir flag there refers to the configure script which is
being discussed in that section. The instructions in that page do not
apply to the prebuilt binary.
> $ /usr/local/src/PACKAGES/luarocks-3.0.4-linux-x86_64/luarocks --sysconfdir
>
> Error: Invalid argument: unknown flag --sysconfdir. See --help.
I would love to add "setter" options to `luarocks config` so that
users can customize their configuration using commands, like `git
config` does. I am however, wary of rewriting user configuration files
which may contain arbitrary Lua code.
Thank you for the constructive feedback!
-- Hisham