> I'm wondering if it makes sense to distribute also the application > itself as a rock. Is this a common scenario?
If your users already have LuaRocks installed, then then you can distribute your application as a rock. This is not always the case, though, so what I used to do with Sputnik is give the users an installation script that would download and install Lua and LuaRocks, install all Sputnik code and dependencies as rocks, then run a config script. One big downside of this method, though, is that it requires network access at the installation time. So, the method I use now instead is based on a kepler-all-in-one installer. What you get with this method is a single archive which has in it Lua, LR, and all the rocks that are needed for the installation. So, the installation script still relies on LuaRocks, but takes rocks from the downloaded archive. See: http://spu.tnik.org/en/Installation > The binaries expect the configuration files in some specific > locations: using luarocks, it seems the suggested location for these > files will require to modify my native libraries... I would copy them to the required locations with the installation script. In Sputnik I've made an effort to never assume the file system beyond LR, so everything is drawn from the rocks at the run time. But in your case this is probably not worth the effort. - yuri _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luarocks-developers
