> -----Original Message----- > From: Thijs Schreijer [mailto:th...@thijsschreijer.nl] > Sent: maandag 23 december 2013 22:45 > To: luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Luarocks-developers] new rockspec Date > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hisham [mailto:h...@hisham.hm] > > Sent: maandag 23 december 2013 17:22 > > To: LuaRocks developers list > > Subject: Re: [Luarocks-developers] new rockspec Date > > > > On 23 December 2013 09:26, Thijs Schreijer <th...@thijsschreijer.nl> > > wrote: > > > I messed up. Sorry for the noise. > > > > > > But also noticed; the main repo contains both 'date' and 'luadate', > > both containing the same source. Where 'date' has been updated (by > > me), but 'luadate' not. > > > > > > Should something be fixed here? > > > > The original project which you updated is indeed called date. date 1.0 > > seems to be an unrelated project by Steve Donovan > > When I open the 'date-1.0-1' source link [1] I get a 'date.lua' file, by > Steve Donovan. And that file starts with this header: > --[[LuaDate version:2.0.1]]------------------------------- > --[[------------------------------------------------------ > Copyright (C) 2006, by Jas Latrix > > So it DOES seem seem unrelated. But the versioning baffles me... 'date 1.0'
Intended: So it DOES seem related > starts with Jas Latrix' code 2.0.1??? > > @steve; did you update, Jas Latrix' code? If so do you have a recollection > of what you did, because I picked his code up as well and I would hate it if > you made bugfixes or improvements that I missed :) > > > > > I'm very wary of removing outdated entries from the tree because there > > may be users out there with working systems that depend on it (and > > there's no sense in breaking their systems just because of my mixup). > > > > Well to some extend this can be considered a bug, and then it should be > fixed... > > > > > It's a similar situation wrt lcurses which is now part of luaposix. I > > can't extend the manifest format now without some breakage, so an idea > > that comes to mind is to add a second metafile listing deprecated > > packages. I could then make them not show up in `luarocks search` and > > the website. > > > > -- Hisham > > Thijs > > [1] http://luarocks.org/repositories/rocks/date-1.0-1.src.rock ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
