On 6 March 2013 00:59, Ildar Mulyukov <il...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On 05.03.2013 22:44:40, Hisham wrote: >> On 5 March 2013 06:27, Ildar Mulyukov <il...@users.sourceforge.net> >> wrote: >> > Thinking of LR as a package manager/builder you have exactly the >> > situation described. Though Hisham still didn't agree with this >> point >> > of view. )) >> >> Ah, I don't think we're in disagreement... what part exactly are you >> referring to? > > May I remind you of this thread? > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.luarocks/3304 . We had a > discussion that had not closed as some questions left unanswered. > JFYI.
Thank you for the reminder. I reread the thread, lots of material there. One update we had since then on the subject was the introduction of the --deps-mode flag, which allows one to configure their desired behavior for multi-trees. As you mentioned in that thread, coming up with a single behavior that fits all situations is hard -- there's no "right" choice that fits all situations. When rocks_trees has multiple entries, the behavior of searching for a dependency now changes according to --deps-mode. Let's assume that: * there is an array of trees listed in rocks_trees * and there is a "current" tree, which may be either * the one at the bottom of the rocks_trees list, * or one explicitly given with --tree * or the "home" tree if --local was given or local_by_default=true is configured (usually at the top of the list) Given that, --deps-mode=one - Consider only the tree at the top of the list (possibly, the one given by the --tree flag, overriding all entries from rocks_trees), ignore all others --deps-mode=all - Consider all trees: if a dependency is installed in any tree of the rocks_trees list, we have a positive match. --deps-mode=order - Consider only trees starting from the "current" one in the order. (The deps_mode variable can also set this in the config file) The "order" mode looks magic, but the idea is that when a user installs a rock in a 'lower-level' tree, it should not depend on rocks from the 'higher-level' tree, but the other way around is permitted. For when dependencies should be entirely contained within a single tree, there's --deps-mode=one. I think this at least alleviates the issues regarding multi-tree behavior and the scenarios that ensued. What specifically are the remaining issues? Let's work on those. -- Hisham http://hisham.hm/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
