On 30 January 2014 20:15, Philipp Janda <siffie...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 30.01.2014 16:40 schröbte Hisham:
>> On 30 January 2014 07:30, Gary V. Vaughan <g...@vaughan.pe> wrote:
>>> Hi Hisham,
>>>
>>> In principle, would you accept a pull request if I did the work (though I
>>> know the internals of LuaRocks almost not at all, so I might need some
>>> pointers and a bit of help here and there)?
>>
>> And will you maintain it afterwards? (IOW, can I ping you if bug
>> reports about it come up?)
>
> Manpages is still my favorite online documentation format (sadly not
> many scripting languages since perl use it), so I'd be willing to help
> with that ...
One good reason is because they are not portable, another is that
other advances have happened since, such as extracting docs from
source comments and support for richer formatting (I've seen way too
many misformatted ASCII-art tables in manpages). But any kind of
documentation is better than no documentation at all, of course. My
point is that as a personal view, I don't wish to promote manpages as
a preferred way of producing documentation of Lua modules.
>> The way to go about it would be to add an optional flag `--man` to
>> luarocks/path.lua (like we have with `--bin`) and also, for
>> consistency, to add knowledge about man pages to luarocks/doc.lua
>> (though I really don't want to spread logic on finding the `man`
>> binary all over the place, the way we did it for the web browser. Just
>> assume you can os.execute("man ...") if cfg.is_platform("unix")
>> returns true).
>
> We would also need `--lr-man` (because Lua 5.2 users can't use the eval
> trick without messing up their Lua 5.1 paths).
Then just make --man a separate code path entirely, to be executed in a
separate eval. Also, since it is not portable anyway, there's no need
to add cfg entries about it, etc. I'm still not convinced that LR
should learn about man pages if we won't really deploy them — it still
seems a bit half-baked to me. But let's see if we can get this to be
really minimal.
> I'm not sure about the
> `luarocks doc` integration, that seems rather complicated ...
I was just thinking that if man/bla.1 exists, then just run something
like os.execute("man -M "..appropriate_dir.." bla.1") and be done with
it. My point is that it's weird if a developer is shipping some kind
of documentation and it is inacessible via `luarocks doc`.
-- Hisham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import
a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Luarocks-developers mailing list
Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
