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

[Stefano <phd.st.p@...>]

On 7 September 2015 at 02:10, Daurnimator <quae@daurnimator.com> wrote:
>   - Looks like ULua only supports lua 5.1? this isn't mentioned
> anywhere on your site

Yes, it is based on LuaJIT which is compatible with Lua 5.1.
I do not have immediate plans to repeat the exercise for Lua 5.2 and
5.2, but if there is a enough request for this I might reconsider.

>   - The list is hard to look through; could you make it more
> browsable? e.g a table?

You are right, it is not optimal for human consumption (it is the
database used by automated build system).
I will pre-process it to make it more readable.

>       - at least take out the unsupported_external_library errors
>   - Seems like you don't handle multiple rockspecs under the one name
>       - e.g. many of lhf's libraries have a different rockspec for
> each lua version, and the version number is something like
> 2015-01-01.51 for lua 5.1

The build system should exclude specs which are for Lua 5.2 and above
and try to build the latest stable (and unstable if above the stable)
version for the same rock.
Can you please point me out to a specific rock where this it is not working?

>   - Module naming conflicts are hard to solve; all times I've run into
> them the authors are uninterested/projects have been abandoned
>       - https://github.com/keplerproject/luarocks/issues/388
>       - https://github.com/zhaozg/lua-openssl/issues/72

I can manually blacklist rocks.
As you have experience on the topic,  would you have suggestions
(based on my module conflicts) on which should be so?

Thank you for your feedback.

Stefano