On 26.11.2012 20:52, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 08:03:17PM +0100, Uli Schlachter wrote: >> Uhm. Why and how (by hand?) are running luadoc on awesome 3.5's source code? >> Did >> you ever look at the result? It's not pretty, because luadoc can't handle >> "lua >> 5.2 style" modules. That's the whole reason why we switched from luadoc to >> ldoc. >> >> (Also, luadoc's abnormally bad error reporting via simply dying is another >> reason) >> >> Are you sure that this patch actually gets us usable docs? > Bah, I didn't check that fully, I just checked that luadoc ran, didn't > check for output. So ignore the patch.
Sure, will do. :-) > So then I have a question: is Lua 5.1 still officially supported? Sure. It needs a recompile, but awesome doesn't use anything from lua 5.2. The modules without module() work in lua 5.1, too (Also, the CMakeLists.txt currently can't find lua if the library is called lua52.so or something similar, so I guess that lua 5.2 won't actually work on those distos). I think everyone is still running awesome with lua 5.1. I certainly do. We just added the necessary #ifdef-hell to make it work with lua 5.2. > Lua 5.2 won't be available in Gentoo until all of the packages that > break with it are resolved per bug 407091 [1] > > 1. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407091 At least you can remove awesome from that list. :-) Uli -- "Do you know that books smell like nutmeg or some spice from a foreign land?" -- Faber in Fahrenheit 451 -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
