I probably asked something like this before, but according to the help:
$ luarocks [...]
build Build/compile a rock. [...]
install Install a rock. [...]
make Compile package in current directory using a rockspec. [...]
So when I did a "luarocks build md5" or "luarocks make
md5-1.1.2-2.rockspec", I expected it to build (but not install) the
md5 package, but they both installed as well. Looking at the detailed
help to figure out what the difference is...
$ luarocks install --help
luarocks install {<rock>|<name> [<version>]}
install - Install a rock.
Argument may be the name of a rock to be fetched from a repository
or a filename of a locally available rock.
$ luarocks build --help
luarocks build [--pack-binary-rock] {<rockspec>|<rock>|<name> [<version>]}
build - Build/compile a rock.
Build and install a rock, compiling its C parts if any.
Argument may be a rockspec file, a source rock file
or the name of a rock to be fetched from a repository.
If --pack-binary-rock is passed, the rock is not installed;
instead, a .rock file with the contents of compilation is produced
in the current directory.
$ luarocks make --help
luarocks make [<rockspec>]
make - Compile package in current directory using a rockspec.
Builds sources in the current directory, but unlike "build",
it does not fetch sources, etc., assuming everything is
available in the current directory. If no argument is given,
look for a rockspec in the current directory. If more than one
is found, you must specify which to use, through the command-line.
This command is useful as a tool for debugging rockspecs.
To install rocks, you'll normally want to use the "install" and
"build" commands. See the help on those for details.
Both build and install have similar signatures, except that
--pack-binary-rock enables build to do what I thought it would do, and
"install" doesn't take a <rockspec> -- or does it? I tried passing a
rockspec to install and it seems to work. So, what is the difference?
Also, the docs for make don't say anything about installing except
implicitly that it's similar to buiild. The difference between build
and make is said to concern whether the sources are local or not. If
that is the only difference, shouldn't make likewise have an option
like "build --pack-binary-rock" to create a binary rock? I may want
to create a binary rock without necessarily installing it (which I may
say more about in a later post).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malware Security Report: Protecting Your Business, Customers, and the
Bottom Line. Protect your business and customers by understanding the
threat from malware and how it can impact your online business.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51427462/
_______________________________________________
Luarocks-developers mailing list
Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
