1 files changed, 50 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/luarocks/cmd/lint.lua b/src/luarocks/cmd/lint.lua
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..738503c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/luarocks/cmd/lint.lua
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+
+--- Module implementing the LuaRocks "lint" command.
+-- Utility function that checks syntax of the rockspec.
+local lint = {}
+
+local util = require("luarocks.util")
+local download = require("luarocks.download")
+local fetch = require("luarocks.fetch")
+
+function lint.add_to_parser(parser)
+   local cmd = parser:command("lint", "Check syntax of a rockspec.\n\n"..
+      "Returns success if the text of the rockspec is syntactically correct, else failure.",
+      util.see_also())
+      :summary("Check syntax of a rockspec.")
+
+   cmd:argument("rockspec", "The rockspec to check.")
+end
+
+function lint.command(args)
+
+   local filename = args.rockspec
+   if not filename:match(".rockspec$") then
+      local err
+      filename, err = download.download("rockspec", filename:lower())
+      if not filename then
+         return nil, err
+      end
+   end
+
+   local rs, err = fetch.load_local_rockspec(filename)
+   if not rs then
+      return nil, "Failed loading rockspec: "..err
+   end
+
+   local ok = true
+
+   -- This should have been done in the type checker,
+   -- but it would break compatibility of other commands.
+   -- Making 'lint' alone be stricter shouldn't be a problem,
+   -- because extra-strict checks is what lint-type commands
+   -- are all about.
+   if not rs.description or not rs.description.license then
+      util.printerr("Rockspec has no description.license field.")
+      ok = false
+   end
+
+   return ok, ok or filename.." failed consistency checks."
+end
+
+return lint