[tex-live] [luatex] lltxplatform integration

Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wagner at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 15:52:43 CEST 2015

2015-06-05 15:04 GMT+02:00 Élie Roux <elie.roux at telecom-bretagne.eu>:
>> Isn't possible to use Luarocks to distribute binary modules?
> A little remark so that everyone can follow: Luarocks compiles the
> binaries on the user's machine, it doesn't distribute binaries per se.
Is it compiled at install time, or at run time? If it is compiled at
install time, it is bad because the TEXMF tree may be physically
located eg in Synology and accessed by many computers with different
operating systems. If it is compiled at run time, the compiled binary
must be stored at the user's computer because the user has no write
access to TEXMF-DIST or TEXMF-VAR.

>> This
>> unfortunately means that user would need to install luarocks and then
>> modules by hand, but it's better than nothing.
> Indeed, but I think it's way too complex for the average user... That
> means your package will remain a marginal experiment (which is a pity).
>> I have in mind two possible approaches:
>> 1. use standard Luarocks and use modified module loader to load
>> libraries. I used this approach in one answer on TeX.sx:
>> http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/219228/2891
>> the problem is that we probably don't have access to paths used by
>> Luarocks from LuaTeX, maybe we can extract them using
>> io.popen("luarocks path","r") and parsing the output?
> On my machine LuaTeX finds the rocks without changing anything... I have
> Debian/Sid with a vanilla luarocks.
> executing luarocks would mean having luarocks in the
> shell_escape_commands, which is certainly not an option... But users
> could add the path to CLUAINPUTS, I think that's the safest option.
>> 2. use modified version of Luarocks and install binary packages
>> directly in $CLUAINPUTS
>> The first option seems more realistic to me.
> Indeed...
> Thank you,
> --
> Elie

Zdeněk Wagner

More information about the tex-live mailing list