On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hisham, Fabio, > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 00:43, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Bug: I can name a rock foo.bar and it will work. But I can't put it as >> a dependency (dot in name is rejected). > >> If dots in names are rejected, they should be rejected early. > >> P.S. I would like to use a dot in my rock name to denote that a rock >> is a part of group of rocks package. > >> Otherwise I'll have three dashes in rock name which is not good.
Just curious: is it just aesthetically "not good" or is there some practical problem? >> Will anything break if we'd allow dots in rock names? > >> Or am I missing something? > > Sorry to nag, but please comment on this. Is dot in rock names allowed > or is it not? If it is allowed, then I'll try to fix dependency > parser. I'm not sure if anything would break within LuaRocks, my guess is that it wouldn't. But fixing the dependency parser would make rocks using this feature incompatible with previous 2.0.x releases. How should we proceed about that? Looks like there's a number of little changes that have been suggested lately that could eventually become a new version of the rockspec format, for a new major release. -- Hisham _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luarocks-developers
