> > 2. LuaDist seems to be suggested on lua.org homepage. Am I the first man
> who noticed it or there was a discussion about it before?
> It's listed on the downloads page under "Binaries" - I'm not sure where you
> see it on the homepage.
On 3 December 2016 at 09:54, Pierre Chapuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In general, I think we (Lua developers) should use LuaRocks.
> When we distribute software to end users we should bundle dependencies
> with it, or rely on the operating systems' own package managers.
> It may make sense for specific ecosystems to have their own package
> managers (e.g. OpenResty) although it would probably be better if
> they just used a custom LuaRocks tree.
Agreed, it would be better, as Torch did with their custom LuaRocks
tree. Having all modules under the same roof as it happens in other
language communities, all projects would benefit from each other's
increased exposure. This would benefit the Lua community at large.
Fragmentation helps no one.
In any case, it was announced that opm is going to include a LuaRocks
bridge, so targeting LuaRocks is a good choice for a developer wanting
to reach both userbases. :)
> On 5 Dec 2016, at 00:44, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> There is second generation of LuaDist in development - the LuaDist2 (see https://github.com/LuaDist2). However there is no information about it on LuaDist pages.
> Good to know, thanks! However, the question still remains:
> Should we still mention LuaDist in lua.org? Is there something else
> that can be mentioned instead, at least until LuaDist2 is released?
I think its still worth mentioning,
even without any update in years I'm still getting feedback on it.
LD2 still needs some polishing before I'm releasing new binary batteries included packages based on it.