Re: Is Lua 5.1.1 your next executable?? (Re: [ANN] Lua 5.1 Debian package)

[John Belmonte <john@...>]

Asko Kauppi wrote:
> 
> Wait a minute.
> 
> There now seems to be consensus on also LuaBinaries moving to  "lua5.1"
> naming instead of "lua51", is there?
> 
> Technically, I don't mind, but is there really any benefit for this?  
> If the Lua authors would warrant, as is the case with Lua 5.0.2, that 
> any 5.1.x version is ABI and API compatible with 5.1, there's  basically
> no issue.
> 
> Personally, I'd favor having lua51 for anything Lua 5.1.x series will 
> bring. Am I the only one seeing Things How They Now Stand as being 
> rather good?  Which I do.

Hi Asko,

I think you are misreading what I wrote as far as the Debian packages.
Any files in the 5.1.x series will have "5.1" in the name.  There will
never be "5.1.1" in a file name.  The rationale for "5.1" vs. "51" is
not based on the existence of minor versions.  I tried to make this
clear in the README, but maybe the text needs more work.

--John