Philipp Janda <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Am 25.03.2015 um 11:36 schröbte steve donovan:
>> And (getting back to the topic of Naming Things) lua5.1.pc, lua5.2.pc
>> seems like reasonable default names.
> That ship has sailed. We recently had this discussion on GitHub:
> LuaRocks chose `luarocks-5.1`, on Windows `lua52.dll` seems customary
> now (for Lua 5.1 LuaBinaries chose `lua5.1.dll` instead), on FreeBSD
> you have `/usr/local/include/lua51` (but `lua-5.1` as executable and
> pkg-config name), and on Debian/Ubuntu you have the names you
> mentioned. And that's only the three OSes I work with ...
Do new versions have to follow the same naming schemes? Would it be an
issue if the next Lua release ships e.g. lua-5.3.pc?