Re: To all Lua rock maintainers (also included considerations on Lua's ecosystem and a Lua distribution)

[Coda Highland <chighland@...>]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Joseph Wallace <tangent128@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/08/2015 02:36 PM, Stefano wrote:
>> The 51, 52 and 53 look like minor versions and I am attempting the
>> build of only the latest stable major version plus unstable if more
>> recent.
>> So the 51 will always be ignored.
>>
>> My personal suggestion would be to have a single rock supporting all
>> three versions of Lua.
>
> This is not always possible; some modules require different build-time
> configuration/commands for different Lua versions.
>
> ~Joseph Wallace
>

The way most packaging systems handle this is to give the distinct
versions distinct package names instead of trying to use the version
number. For example, in Ubuntu, Python libraries that support both 2
and 3 are shipped as "python-xxx" and "python3-xxx" (e.g.
"python-cairo" vs. "python3-cairo").

So you might have mylib_51 version 1.0.2-1, mylib_52 version 1.0.2-1,
and mylib_53 version 1.0.2-1 -- and, if your 5.1 version isn't
LuaJIT-compatible for whatever reason, perhaps mylib_lj version
1.0.2-1 or similar.

/s/ Adam