On 15.09.2012 04:13:49, Hisham wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Ildar Mulyukov  
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So speaking of LR, if it's a Package Management System, then it
> > probably shouldn't handle multi-trees in terms of deps checking.  
> PERIOD.
> 
> I disagree. Just because RPM and DEB don't handle multi-trees (and I'm

It's not "just", there's something that caused that.

> not even sure they don't, it's been a long time since I last looked at
> them), it doesn't mean that no pacakge manager can ever have this
> feature.

emm, have a good example? Any single package manager that works that  
way?
In fact there are good reasons for that. Some of the reasons you  
already mentioned yourself: inter-tree deps, control mechanisms, etc.

> > But if treating LR as "packaging of what is in $LUA_PATH", then  
> there
> > could be an alternative design:
> > 1. LR follows $LUA_PATH and handles multi-tree according to it.
> > $LUA_CPATH should be taken into account too.
> > 2a. -||-
> > 2b. LR shall control deps.
> > 2c. manifest file existence and placement should be rethought.
> >
> > Need to elaborate further. But for now what do you think?
> 
> Item 1 would be a great idea if LUA_PATH was not so free-form. We
> could kind-of guess the LR trees and their precedence from a
> well-behaved LUA_PATH, but we can't really count on this.

Yes, surely. But that'd be really natural. Please, think of it.

> On item 2c, we did change that from LuaRocks 1.x to 2.x, in order to
> make things more controlled and to be compatible with the standard
> layout expected by vanilla LUA_PATH.
> 
> I don't think the big challange now is about placement and the
> manifest really, but rather about defining the behavior of the tool in
> the presence of multiple configured trees.

Agreed. I mean that having changed the behavior would most probably  
cause another change in this area. Anyway, it useless to argue about  
this until the behavior question get resolved.

> Some concrete questions:
> 
> * Should LuaRocks allow the installation of rocks in a tree if its
> dependencies are installed in another tree?
> * Should this behavior to be the default?
> * Should any other configured tree match, or should there be criteria
> for this "other tree" to be accepted (Example: /usr/local depends on
> /usr, not vice versa)
> * How about the user tree? (Scenario: What if the sysadmin uninstalls
> a rock and breaks the user's tree? Do we care?)

Allright, I have one more thing to propose: usecases. (the scenarios  
you already started to quote here).
Let me add here a couple.
0. This is about a user who wants to use a piece of software on his  
Linux box (some Linux FHS-compliant distro, like Fedora or Ubuntu)
1. The user, who has admin rights, installs the software (a rock, e.g.  
Sputnik) _systemwide_ with this command: <fill the command here> and  
launches it with this command: <another command>
2. The user, who has _no_ admin rights, installs the software (a rock,  
e.g. Sputnik) _locally_ with this command: <fill the command here> and  
launches it with this command: <another command>
3. A rock in system tree (/usr) is removed by another (admin) user.
and so on.

When you get a full set of _reasonable_ usecases, you can compare them  
to what we have now and may have an idea what's missing and, maybe,  
what we should get rid of.

I humbly hope this helps. Regards,
-- 
Ildar Mulyukov,  free SW designer/programmer
================================================
email: [email protected]
blog: http://johan-notes.blogspot.com/
ALT Linux Sisyphus
================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How fast is your code?
3 out of 4 devs don\\\'t know how their code performs in production.
Find out how slow your code is with AppDynamics Lite.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;262219672;13503038;z?
http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html
_______________________________________________
Luarocks-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers

Reply via email to