On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 01:56, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 07:22, Hisham <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> After some meditation I decided to release v0.0.1 of lua-nucleo.
>
>>>> http://github.com/lua-nucleo/lua-nucleo/raw/master/rockspec/lua-nucleo-0.0.1-1.rockspec
>
>>> Uploaded, thanks!
>
>> The current lua-nucleo rock contains .git/ directory. This is,
>> probably, a bad idea.
>
> I feel that I should elaborate.
>
> If you look at my rockspec, you'll see that it uses a Git tag as the
> source. I think that something happened during repacking of the rock
> that included the .git directory as well. If this is the reason —
> lua-aplicado should be fixed as well.
>
> Hisham, can you please look into this?
But is that a problem other than wasting a little space?
The .src.rock file is a convenience so that users don't need to have
git installed to use the stable rock -- the .git dir in that case
won't be used at all, and the sources directory is deleted after
installation.
The clean way to fix this would be to make luarocks.fetch.git remove
.git after the checkout, but I'm not sure if this is always desirable
('luarocks unpack' comes to mind).
Speaking of this, I don't if people actually use the 'unpack' and
'make' commands much. From the feedback I gathered over time, it seems
the interface for these commands needs to be reviewed if LuaRocks
wants to be useful as a make replacement for simple Lua modules.
-- Hisham
_______________________________________________
Luarocks-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luarocks-developers
