On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Jerome Vuarand <[email protected]> wrote: > The examples are easily accessible on the web page and in source > tarballs. I'm not very comfortable with installing scripts on the user > computer that he doesn't expect, and AFAICT there is no way to opt out > of these copy_directories.
That is true; either they get installed or they don't. I think one of the problems that it was not always obvious where the examples, docs etc actually ended up, which is why I pushed for the 'show' command. Whereas a web link is straightforward. You do make the examples available enough. The main thing is that the code gets delivered in a working state and people can easily find out how to use it. > That's a serious drawback, I've got to think about it. Not obvious how to solve it, since we have no concept of 'package inheritance' > There are two reasons for that. First the module existed before the > "Lunary" name. For these reasons I'd rather not change the module name, but > I guess > that's your call. Oh no, this was a personal feeling. And even if Hisham had an opinion about module naming, he is far too polite to mention it. It is always your call, and the more rocks the better the party! steve d. _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luarocks-developers
