[Luarocks-developers] Garden concept?
askok at dnainternet.net
Tue May 1 16:24:30 BRT 2007
How about a way more basic (and less unix-y) approach:
Have everything of a module's tgz untarred to - say:
The sources would remain there, the .lua would be there, the docs
would be there. The .so would get compiled into there.
Give this some time - don't reply instantly. :) The good side would
be, it's very easy to tell what's where and the module has it's own
limited garden with whatever it brought along with it. Splitting
things to share, lib, doc (what else?) will need way more bookkeeping.
Removal of a module would become simply removing the active/xxx
directory. That's it! Modules would _never_ install anything
outside of that garden.
Hisham Muhammad kirjoitti 1.5.2007 kello 21:57:
> On 5/1/07, Asko Kauppi <askok at dnainternet.net> wrote:
>> My plans would use
>> for modules.
>> The reason is being able to run LuaRocks as a user (not sudo).
> Yes, that could certainly be possible. Due to its crossplatform nature
> LuaRocks must be prefix-friendly, so using ~/.luarocks or somewhere
> under /usr is a matter of editing the config file. Thinking of it,
> ~/.luarocks is a good default as it will work out-of-the-box.
>> There could also be system-wide installation directory, which would
>> require sudo rights. That could imho be in/usr/lib/luarocks, as
>> André says. Splitting rocks into two places is no good idea, and
>> 'share' is supposed to be binary-free (platform independent) only.
> Correct, that's why 'share' contains the .lua files, and 'lib' the
> platform-dependent files. As it is now I don't see them split in the
> system, as both LuaRocks' 'share' and 'lib' are under the same prefix.
> Also, 'share' for .lua and 'lib' for .so is the same setup used in
> standard Lua.
> -- Hisham
More information about the Luarocks-developers