This is an important refactor of the way documentation generation works

* Installs luarocks WITH it's executable (easy to install other rocks if necessary)
* Use Lua supplied with luarocks
* Create Utils/luadocumentor.bat, which works with RELATIVE PATH ! -> Everybody can generate the doc
* Updated launch files accordingly

Utils/luarocks/lua/luarocks/lint.lua

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+
+--- Module implementing the LuaRocks "lint" command.
+-- Utility function that checks syntax of the rockspec.
+local lint = {}
+package.loaded["luarocks.lint"] = lint
+
+local util = require("luarocks.util")
+local download = require("luarocks.download")
+local fetch = require("luarocks.fetch")
+
+util.add_run_function(lint)
+lint.help_summary = "Check syntax of a rockspec."
+lint.help_arguments = "<rockspec>"
+lint.help = [[
+This is a utility function that checks the syntax of a rockspec.
+
+It returns success or failure if the text of a rockspec is
+syntactically correct.
+]]
+
+function lint.command(flags, input)
+   if not input then
+      return nil, "Argument missing. "..util.see_help("lint")
+   end
+   
+   local filename = input
+   if not input:match(".rockspec$") then
+      local err
+      filename, err = download.download("rockspec", input: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.license then
+      util.printerr("Rockspec has no license field.")
+      ok = false
+   end
+
+   return ok, ok or filename.." failed consistency checks."
+end
+
+return lint