On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, list. > > build = "none" > copy_directories = { "lib/foo" } > > Instead of being installed into $(luarocks show --rock-dir > myrock)/lib/foo, as expected, files in lib/foo are installed in > /usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/foo. > > If I wanted that, I'd use install.lib! :-( > > LuaRocks (2.0.4-rc2) is again trying to be smarter than user. That is > bad. LuaRocks is a low-level package management tool. It must do what > it is told and nothing more. > > I hope that is a bug and it would be fixed in 2.0.4...
Right now the behavior will stay as is. The whole story about the admittedly strange behavior you are describing is that LuaRocks installs modules following a "LuaRocks 1" style tree and then moves the contents of lib/ and lua/ to the "LuaRocks 2" style tree. This is the advertised behavior. It is somewhat under-documented as rocks shouldn't make assumptions about the contents of the rock-dir (we tell people to user variables such as $(LIBDIR) and $(LUADIR)). "copy_directories" was added as a convenience for installing documentation, samples, etc., not to perform installation of libraries. As usual, every time one adds a feature to please some people, it comes and bites you in the back. Sorry if this is an unsatisfactory answer, but keep in mind that LuaRocks is a deployment and management system for Lua modules, not a general low-level package manager. -- Hisham _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luarocks-developers
