Am 07.05.2013 00:46 schröbte p...@pjb.com.au: > Greetings :-) Somebody is in a good mood ... :-)
> > Well, just so the other point of view gets represented... > > Philipp Janda wrote: >> I want to start a discussion, what (if anything) can >> be done to improve the state of luarocks for Lua 5.2. > > Nag the developers; report incompatibilities as the bugs that they are. There are currently 616 rockspecs claiming open-ended compatibility with Lua 5.1 and up. Many of them refer to fixed releases, so the code cannot be updated for an existing rock. Releasing a new rock with fixed dependencies wouldn't help (I think), because luarocks would simply pick the old versions. So there is not much the developer can do (releasing a new version with proper Lua 5.2 support would still be appreciated, of course). The correct thing to do would have been to never claim compatibility with a Lua version that hadn't been released yet. > >> Is releasing a rockspec that patches other people's code ok? >> Should we modify rockspecs fixing the >> dependencies of other people's rocks? > > It creates forks, duplicates with confusing names that > confuse innocent victims until the end of the universe. > It's not lethal, but it's not desirable. If the maintainer doesn't > react to your patch, nor to a "where are you?" e.g. on this list, > then the module should be considered a candidate for adoption. > You might like to volunteer to adopt it :-) > or the original maintainer might like to > re-adopt it and incorporate your fix :-) Having an active maintainer is of course preferable, but fixing a wrong dependency once and adopting some abandoned module require very different amounts of work. > >> What should happen to obviously unmaintained rocks >> that claim Lua-compatibility to the end of the universe? >> What should happen to unmaintained rocks in general? > > They should be put up for adoption; there should be a list > of "modules you might like to adopt" somewhere prominent. Sounds good. What happens if nobody volunteers? How long do we wait for somebody? While we wait, wouldn't it be better if those abandoned modules didn't break luarocks for Lua 5.2? > >> Should rockspecs with open-ended dependencies be banned altogether? > > No, they should be maintained. Dependencies should be closed > only as a declaration that "this module is now unmaintained". Actually, Lua 5.1 and 5.2 are *so* similar, and porting from the former to the later is so easy in most cases (the most difficult part is figuring out the build script, IME), that I think that every developer who hasn't ported by now, simply isn't interested in a 5.2 version (yet). > > Just my 4*2 (erm...) = 8 cents-worth... > > Regards, Peter Billam > Philipp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
