Hi Hisham,
On 27 Jun 2013, at 03:33, Hisham <h...@hisham.hm> wrote:
> On 25 June 2013 23:30, Gary V. Vaughan <g...@vaughan.pe> wrote:
>> LUA_PATH=$LUA_PATH;`luarocks path`
>> LUA_CPATH=$LUA_CPATH;`luarocks cpath`
>
> I just pushed new flags to `luarocks path` that will hopefully serve your
> needs:
>
> luarocks path --lr-path
> luarocks path --lr-cpath
> luarocks path --lr-bin
>
> Please give it a try and let me know if it's sufficient.
That approach will definitely make writing wrapper scripts *much* simpler,
thanks!
However, I think the implementation is still not quite right...
$ luarocks path
export
LUA_PATH='/usr/local/share/lua/5.1/?.lua;/usr/local/share/lua/5.1/?/init.lua;/Users/gary/.luarocks/share/lua/5.1/?.lua;/Users/gary/.luarocks/share/lua/5.1/?/init.lua;/usr/local/Cellar/luarocks/HEAD/share/lua/5.1//?.lua;/usr/local/Cellar/luarocks/HEAD/share/lua/5.1//?/init.lua;./?.lua;/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/?.lua;/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/?/init.lua'
export
LUA_CPATH='/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/?.so;/Users/gary/.luarocks/lib/lua/5.1/?.so;./?.so;/usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/loadall.so'
$ luarocks path --lr-path
/usr/local/share/lua/5.1/?.lua;/usr/local/share/lua/5.1/?/init.lua;/Users/gary/.luarocks/share/lua/5.1/?.lua;/Users
Note that --lr-path omits the paths to the actual luarocks lua files from
/usr/local/Cellar/luarocks/HEAD/share/lua/5.1/?.lua, so when executing a
wrapper script using a different Lua version than the one LuaRocks was
installed with, the luarocks sources can't be found. For example:
$ cat $LUAROCKS_CONFIG
rocks_trees = { "/usr/local/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.2" }
variables = {
LUA = "/usr/local/opt/lua52/bin/lua5.2",
LUA_BINDIR = "/usr/local/opt/lua52/bin",
LUA_INCDIR = "/usr/local/opt/lua52/include/lua-5.2",
LUA_LIBDIR = "/usr/local/opt/lua52/lib",
}
$ lua5.2 "`which luarocks`" path --lr-path
/usr/local/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.2/share/lua/5.2/?.lua;/usr/local/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.2/share/lua/5.2/?/init.lua
>> At a slight tangent, 'export foo=bar' is not as portable as 'export foo;
>> foo=bar'
>> which works in pure Bourne shells (on machines that don't just link it to
>> bash).
>
> Is that still the case on any contemporary system? I haven't received
> any bug reports.
Arguably, not. It's possible to build a basic Solaris system where /bin/sh is
not a posix shell (though I haven't checked whether it specifically omits
`export foo=bar` functionality), but more importantly there are more likely to
be embedded systems that want to use Lua, but don't have the resources for a
full blown bash/zsh/ksh installation. Admittedly, these are edge cases at
best, but it's so trivially simple to support those systems too (by changing to
`export foo; foo = bar` syntax) that it seems like a shame not to do it.
Cheers,
--
Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT vaughan DOT pe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Luarocks-developers mailing list
Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
