2011/6/28 Ignacio Burgueño <[email protected]>: > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Wesley Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Is there a way to have a rockspec that describes a binary module but >> doesn't include a source? I want to have all of the metadata like >> license, description, etc. with the binary rock, but I don't want to >> have the source option be a part. > > source and source.url are mandatory, but I think you could "abuse" it: > source.url = "file://somewhere/on/your/fs" > Not too sure on this one, though.
Yeah, no reason why it shouldn't work. file:// is recognized as a protocol and in any case you can use an invalid path if you're just using rockspecs for the metadata and will never going to use source.url anyway. We may make source.url optional in a future version of the rockspec format for situations like this. -- -- 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
