On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:12 AM, steve donovan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Andre Carregal <[email protected]> wrote: >> somewhat of an overload of the verb show. For me at least, "show" >> would be better used for things that are available locally, while >> "query" (or something similar) would fit better for things that are >> not "here". > > I suppose I have been getting used to 'aptitude show'. So the next > question would be, do people want a query command? > > It would do a search on the remote repo(s), grab the rockspec and > extract the basic information. It may find enough information to > present the modules defined by the package, although not always (e.g. > if the install is done by a makefile) > > (Hisham, how does LR know how to populate the modules fields in the > local manifest in this case?)
LuaRocks 2 still installs modules inside their own prefix (e.g. "make install DESTDIR=/usr/local/lib/luarocks/rocks/luasocket/2.0.2-1/") , just like LuaRocks 1 did. It moves modules out of the rock directory and into the common module path (e.g. /usr/local/share/lua/5.1 and /usr/local/lib/lua/5.1) after "make install". I'm not sure what would be the ideal workflow to get module information for these rocks available in the remote repo, keeping in mind I can review rockspecs but I can't actually run and install them all, due to external dependencies. Perhaps we come up with a way to make it easy for contributors to share the rockspec they wrote plus the automatically generated rock_manifest file for their rock. -- Hisham _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luarocks-developers
