[ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Hisham
Hello list!

On behalf of the development community at the luarocks-developers
mailing list, I'm happy to announce LuaRocks 2.2.0. LuaRocks is a
package management system for Lua modules. (For more information,
please visit http://luarocks.org )

http://luarocks.org/releases/luarocks-2.2.0.tar.gz
http://luarocks.org/releases/luarocks-2.2.0-win32.zip

Those of you who installed LuaRocks 2.1.0 or later by using "make bootstrap" on
Unix may upgrade by simply running:

luarocks install luarocks

What's new since 2.1.2:

* MoonRocks is the new default repository: http://rocks.moonscript.org
- Rocks don't need to be sent to the LuaRocks mailing list anymore,
you can upload them directly at the website or using...
* ...`luarocks upload` command for uploading rocks to MoonRocks via
the command-line
* Preliminary support for Lua 5.3
* No longer uses the module() function, for Lua 5.2 installations
built without Lua 5.1 compatibility
* --branch flag for `luarocks build` and `luarocks make`
* various improvements in `luarocks doc` command
* "git+http" transport for source.url

As usual, see the GitHub logs for detailed history and credits. And as
always, all kind of feedback is much appreciated.

Thank you, enjoy!

-- Hisham
http://hisham.hm/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Dirk Laurie-2
2014-08-15 20:03 GMT+02:00 Hisham <[hidden email]>:

> * MoonRocks is the new default repository: http://rocks.moonscript.org

Firefox is underwhelmed by that:

~~~
This Connection is Untrusted

You have asked Firefox to connect securely to rocks.moonscript.org,
but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.

Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted
identification to prove that you are going to the right place.
However, this site's identity can't be verified.
~~~

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Enrico Colombini
On 15/08/2014 20.11, Dirk Laurie wrote:
>> * MoonRocks is the new default repository:http://rocks.moonscript.org
> Firefox is underwhelmed by that:
>
> ~~~
> This Connection is Untrusted

At this time my Firefox (ESR 24.7.0 on XP) seems happy with it.

--
   Enrico

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Dirk Laurie-2
2014-08-15 21:56 GMT+02:00 Enrico Colombini <[hidden email]>:

> On 15/08/2014 20.11, Dirk Laurie wrote:
>>>
>>> * MoonRocks is the new default repository:http://rocks.moonscript.org
>>
>> Firefox is underwhelmed by that:
>>
>> ~~~
>> This Connection is Untrusted
>
>
> At this time my Firefox (ESR 24.7.0 on XP) seems happy with it.

Mine is 31, on a system still supported by its supplier.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Enrico Colombini
On 16/08/2014 9.07, Dirk Laurie wrote:
>> At this time my Firefox (ESR 24.7.0 on XP) seems happy with it.
> Mine is 31, on a system still supported by its supplier.

You have a point here :-)
(I am moving to Linux at lame snail pace)

In my ignorance of such things, I thought certificates were handled by
Firefox ignoring the underlying OS, but with the same Firefox version
(ESR 24.7.0) on CentOS 6.5 I get the "untrusted connection" warning
("sec_error_unknown_issuer") on http://rocks.moonscript.org, so it seems
I was wrong.

--
   Enrico


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Enrico Colombini
Looks like the problem regarding Firefox and the certificate of
http://rocks.moonscript.org could be a bit more complex:

XP (unsupported, I know):
- FF (ESR 24.7.0): OK
- IE: OK [used with great reluctance, unsafe since March]

W7/64:
- FF (ESR 24.7.0): untrusted
- IE: OK

CentOS (6.5, in VM sotto XP):
- FF (ESR 24.7.0): untrusted

OS X (10.9.4):
- FF (31.0): untrusted
- Safari (7.0.5): OK

Note: all systems and browsers are up-to-date (ESR is the stable,
no-frills version of Firefox that only gets security updates and bugfixes).

Friends tell me that the site certificate seems to be valid and point me
to this page (search for 'Firefox'):
http://wiki.gandi.net/en/ssl/faq

According to that page, the problem may be related to Gandi's
intermediate SSL certificate: it is valid, but Firefox does not know it
unless the certificate is manually downloaded and installed (which in a
sense defeats the concept of secure connection - think of redirecting
malware).

--
   Enrico


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Enrico Colombini
P.S. If I understood correctly, the problem could probably be solved for
all Firefox users by installing Gandi's intermediate SSL certificate on
the moonscript.org server.

--
   Enrico

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Ignacio Burgueño-2
Thanks Enrico. I opened an issue here:




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Dirk Laurie-2
In reply to this post by Hisham
2014-08-15 20:03 GMT+02:00 Hisham <[hidden email]>:

> http://luarocks.org/releases/luarocks-2.2.0.tar.gz
> http://luarocks.org/releases/luarocks-2.2.0-win32.zip
>
> Those of you who installed LuaRocks 2.1.0 or later by using "make bootstrap" on
> Unix may upgrade by simply running:
>
> luarocks install luarocks

When I did that, I got:

sudo luarocks install luarocks
Installing http://rocks.moonscript.org/luarocks-2.1.2-1.src.rock...
Using http://rocks.moonscript.org/luarocks-2.1.2-1.src.rock...
switching to 'build' mode
Warning: /usr/local/bin/luarocks is not tracked by this installation
of LuaRocks. Moving it to /usr/local/bin/luarocks~
Warning: /usr/local/bin/luarocks-admin is not tracked by this
installation of LuaRocks. Moving it to /usr/local/bin/luarocks-admin~
Warning: /usr/local/share/lua/5.3/luarocks/purge.lua is not tracked by
this installation of LuaRocks. Moving it to
/usr/local/share/lua/5.3/luarocks/purge.lua~
...
[Pages and pages of the same sort of stuff]
Updating manifest for /usr/local/lib/luarocks/rocks

luarocks 2.1.2-1 is now built and installed in /usr/local (license: MIT/X11)

However, the luarocks thus built will not run.

$ sudo luarocks install lpeg
/home/dirk/bin/lua53: /usr/local/share/lua/5.3/luarocks/loader.lua:12:
attempt to call a nil value (global 'module')
stack traceback:
    /usr/local/share/lua/5.3/luarocks/loader.lua:12: in main chunk
    [C]: in function 'require'
    /usr/local/lib/luarocks/rocks/luarocks/2.1.2-1/bin/luarocks:3: in main chunk
    [C]: in ?

So I did the luarocks bootstrap again: "./configure" and "sudo
luarocks bootstrap".
The latter gives me exactly the same messages as above, but at least the newly
built luarocks runs.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Hisham
On 24 August 2014 09:34, Dirk Laurie <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2014-08-15 20:03 GMT+02:00 Hisham <[hidden email]>:
>
>> http://luarocks.org/releases/luarocks-2.2.0.tar.gz
>> http://luarocks.org/releases/luarocks-2.2.0-win32.zip
>>
>> Those of you who installed LuaRocks 2.1.0 or later by using "make bootstrap" on
>> Unix may upgrade by simply running:
>>
>> luarocks install luarocks
>
> When I did that, I got:
>
> sudo luarocks install luarocks
> Installing http://rocks.moonscript.org/luarocks-2.1.2-1.src.rock...
> Using http://rocks.moonscript.org/luarocks-2.1.2-1.src.rock...

Oops! I forgot that now _I_ have to upload rockspecs to MoonRocks as well!

Sorry about the hiccup!

-- Hisham

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Dirk Laurie-2
In reply to this post by Hisham
2014-08-15 20:03 GMT+02:00 Hisham <[hidden email]>:

> * MoonRocks is the new default repository: http://rocks.moonscript.org
> - Rocks don't need to be sent to the LuaRocks mailing list anymore,
> you can upload them directly at the website or using...
> * ...`luarocks upload` command for uploading rocks to MoonRocks via
> the command-line
> * Preliminary support for Lua 5.3

Have the above two come together yet? Uploading says:

Error: A JSON library is required for this command.

But an attempt to install dkjson with luarocks-5.3 says:

Missing dependencies for dkjson:
lua >= 5.1, < 5.3

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Hisham
On 28 August 2014 17:09, Dirk Laurie <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2014-08-15 20:03 GMT+02:00 Hisham <[hidden email]>:
>
>> * MoonRocks is the new default repository: http://rocks.moonscript.org
>> - Rocks don't need to be sent to the LuaRocks mailing list anymore,
>> you can upload them directly at the website or using...
>> * ...`luarocks upload` command for uploading rocks to MoonRocks via
>> the command-line
>> * Preliminary support for Lua 5.3
>
> Have the above two come together yet? Uploading says:
>
> Error: A JSON library is required for this command.
>
> But an attempt to install dkjson with luarocks-5.3 says:
>
> Missing dependencies for dkjson:
> lua >= 5.1, < 5.3

Oh, good question. Haven't tried every combination of Lua versions +
JSON libraries. Did you try another JSON library? IIRC, I tested it
with lua-cjson, but I don't know if it was on Lua 5.3.

-- Hisham

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

David Heiko Kolf-2
In reply to this post by Dirk Laurie-2
Dirk Laurie wrote:

> 2014-08-15 20:03 GMT+02:00 Hisham <[hidden email]>:
>
>> * MoonRocks is the new default repository: http://rocks.moonscript.org
>> - Rocks don't need to be sent to the LuaRocks mailing list anymore,
>> you can upload them directly at the website or using...
>> * ...`luarocks upload` command for uploading rocks to MoonRocks via
>> the command-line
>> * Preliminary support for Lua 5.3
>
> Have the above two come together yet? Uploading says:
>
> Error: A JSON library is required for this command.
>
> But an attempt to install dkjson with luarocks-5.3 says:
>
> Missing dependencies for dkjson:
> lua >= 5.1, < 5.3

Oh, on the one hand I have to admit that I didn't even test my module
with the Lua 5.3 alpha version yet.

But on the other hand, even if that test was successful or I made a new
version compatible with 5.3-alpha, could I really say in the rockspeck
that the version requirement is < 5.4? How much could still change
between alpha and beta?

Best regards,

David Kolf


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Aapo Talvensaari
In reply to this post by Hisham
Many Lua libs use LuaJIT FFI. Yet, I find many rockspecs in MoonRocks with

dependencies = {
  "lua == 5.1"; -- In fact this should be "luajit >= 2.0.0"
}

Is there plans to add (or is there already) LuaJIT dependency requirement support? I'm asking this because I have quite a few libs that I was thinking about releasing on MoonRocks that all use FFI, but don't know the right way to do it.


Regards
Aapo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANN] LuaRocks 2.2.0

Hisham
On 28 August 2014 19:17, Aapo Talvensaari <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Many Lua libs use LuaJIT FFI. Yet, I find many rockspecs in MoonRocks with
>
> dependencies = {
>   "lua == 5.1"; -- In fact this should be "luajit >= 2.0.0"
> }
>
> Is there plans to add (or is there already) LuaJIT dependency requirement
> support?

Yes, there are plans to add it. We didn't do it before because of
backwards compatibility.

> I'm asking this because I have quite a few libs that I was thinking
> about releasing on MoonRocks that all use FFI, but don't know the right way
> to do it.

For now the method above suffices, even if not optimal. In the near
future, we should be able to improve this.

-- Hisham