On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 23:09, Hisham <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? Aestetically. > 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? I already depend on the 2.0.3 binary installation fix. So, no problem for me. _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luarocks-developers
