[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua Ecosystem
- From: Peter Drahoš <drahosp@...>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:22:59 +0100
On 25 Nov, 2013, at 16:03 , Pierre Chapuis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Pierre Chapuis <email@example.com>
>>> If we adopt the convention I was proposing that the name
>>> of the package in LuaRocks should be the top-level thing
>>> we require, we already have that centralized authority :)
>> Of course, most LR packages don't follow this convention. So that
>> horse has bolted already.
> We have fewer than 350 modules in LuaRocks.
> Fixing them all is doable if you ask me.
> The rockspec format will change soon anyway,
> so if we want to clean up this kind of things
> now would be a good moment to decide it.
No. During the workshop discussions with Hisham we agreed that it is much more sensible to extend the existing rockspec specification and add features needed by LuaDist so we will not diverge any further, meaning that LuaDist will abolish its “dist.info” files in favor of rockspec. This is because in LuaDist we can directly install “built-in” type rocks, these make up almost 80% of the modules in the LuaRocks repository. The other 20% are “hard” cases mostly built with Makefiles or other inherently not portable approaches, these REALLY need to be addressed to make the system fully portable. These can however be built using LuaDist.
Changing the rockspec format to something else would not only affect the rocks in the repository but also projects that use LuaRocks but do not have a rockspec submitted. Instead these are installed by linking directly to the rockspec URL. Not breaking this behavior is crucial.