> I'd also have no objection if, after some warning period to rockspecs > authors, rockspecs that only specify "lua >= 5.1" are changed to "lua >= 5.1, > < 5.2"
I think it's a fine idea, but how would this work for those modules that are indeed "lua >= 5.1" supported? Would we need additional "really" flag to indicate 5.2 support: "lua >= 5.1 really" (kidding)? Or would those rockspecs that haven't been updated for more than X days/month be updated to include "lua == 5.1"? For example, my Mobdebug module specified "lua >= 5.1" as its dependency and it indeed works with 5.1 and 5.2 as advertised (or at least as much as I tested it with 5.2). I wouldn't want that to be interpreted as "< 5.2". Paul. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. This 200-page book is written by three acclaimed leaders in the field. The early access version is available now. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/neotech_d2d_may _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
