On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 19:15:38 +0900, Lemures Lemniscati > On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 08:40:33 +0100, Achim Gratz > > Lemures Lemniscati via Cygwin-apps writes: > > > * A new source luarocks provides lua53- and lua54-luarocks. > > > They install rocks into an alternative tree /var/lib/lua-site/. > > > > That looks wrong to me, I'd have expected > > > > /usr/share/lua/luarocks > > > > or maybe /usr/local as a prefix depending on how much emphasis you want > > to put on the user-installable part. The /var/lib tree is for local > > state information per FHS, not installed components. > > Thank you for review. > > I've fixed it, so that luarocks should install rocks into > /usr/local, and updated packages [1]. >
I'm wondering again it would be better for luarock to install into /usr/local tree. If we choose /usr/share/lua/luarocks as a tree root for luarocks, the tree will be /usr/share/lua/luarocks/bin /usr/share/lua/luarocks/lib/lua/5.3 /usr/share/lua/luarocks/lib/lua/5.4 /usr/share/lua/luarocks/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.3/ /usr/share/lua/luarocks/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.4/ /usr/share/lua/luarocks/share/lua/5.3 /usr/share/lua/luarocks/share/lua/5.4 and if we choose /usr/local, the tree will be /usr/local/bin /usr/local/lib/lua/5.3 /usr/local/lib/lua/5.4 /usr/local/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.3/ /usr/local/lib/luarocks/rocks-5.4/ /usr/local/share/lua/5.3 /usr/local/share/lua/5.4 The latter seems more intuitive for me. Regards, Lem