Hi, Answering a few different things at once:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Wesley Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Before getting to my question, what's the best site for LuaRocks > documentation? I was trying to find a mailing list but the one listed > is out of date. > > http://www.luarocks.org/en/Mailing_list > http://luaforge.net/mail/?group_id=220 > > Is www.luarocks.org still the place to go? Yes, it is. The Mailing List page was outdated but I just fixed it to point to the right address (luarocks.org is a wiki :) ) . On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Wesley Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > In this case it's opengl.so, a dynamic library loaded by Lua. To my > ears command is something like grep or lua that should be installed > in /bin not /lib. I appreciate the example, but calling a dynamic > library a command just confuses the situation. I'm already massively > confused enough by the luarocks system. You have a point. I guess I'm somewhat bad with names (even though I _try_ to be careful about them!). "command" in this sense is supposed to mean that the build process is performed by calling an external command. The confusion used to be even greater because there was another build type called "module", but now that was renamed to "builtin" (which is, I believe, more descriptive -- "builtin" means that LuaRocks will use its builtin build system for compiling stuff as opposed to being just a package manager which calls other build systems (make for the "make" type, cmake for "cmake" or some other arbitrary command for the "command" type). On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Wesley Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Taking a stab at it, I tried making by hand an installation of my rock > since that seems to be the only way to start the process of packing > one??? Anyway, when I did this, I set it up by > > name/version/name-version.rockspec > > when I then tried to update the manifest so that luarocks thinks the > thing is installed, I got the following error: > > > Error: rock_manifest file not found for opengl 1.0-4258 - not a LuaRocks 2 > tree? > > > So now I'm stuck with the problem that I can't pack the rock because I > can't install by hand without somehow creating a manifest, but I can't > create a manifest without installing it. It's a chicken and egg > problem. How do I get around it? You can use "luarocks make". It will assume the sources (or the binary, in your case) and rockspec are in the current directory and will install a rock properly, which you can then "luarocks pack". Yes, most commands and the documentation are biased towards the case where you already have a project released out there somewhere and you want to make that into a rock. Sorry about that! Again in the naming issue, I understand that "luarocks make" was also a poor choice, since it does the equivalent of both 'make' and 'make install'. -- -- Hisham http://hisham.hm/ - http://colorbleed.com.br/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
