On 10 June 2015 at 11:57, Dimitris Papavasiliou <dpapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
>
> On 06/09/2015 06:46 PM, Philipp Janda wrote:
>>> Is there any way I can tackle this in LuaRocks?
>>
>> You don't have access to the Lua version in rockspecs. But since the
>> number of Lua versions is manageable, you could provide multiple
>> different rockspecs. This is what I have done for my Testy[1] project,
>> and it works great so far.
>>
>> I use `-51`, `-52`, and `-53` as the rockspec revision. In the
>> dependencies table, I make sure that the rockspec is valid only for the
>> intended Lua version (e.g. `lua ~> 5.1`), and in the `build.install`
>> table I copy the versioned script (`testy-5.1` and additionally an
>> unversioned script (`testy.lua`). The unversioned one may be overwritten
>> by later installs for different Lua versions, the versioned one should stay.
>
> Thanks for sharing your solution. It's an interesting approach and it
> gets the job done, although there are two slight problems (which,
> granted, probably can't currently be addressed with LuaRocks):
>
> a) You have to maintain multiple rock files, each with mostly the same
> contents.
>
> For this reason I've impelmented version-specific overrides, which work
> basically exactly like platform-specific overrides. With this feature,
> you can just say something like this:
>
> build = {
> ...
>
> versions = {
> ["5.1"] = {
> install = {
> bin = {
> ["luap-5.1"] = 'luap.lua',
> },
> },
> },
>
> ["5.2"] = {
> install = {
> bin = {
> ["luap-5.2"] = 'luap.lua',
> },
> },
> },
> },
>
> ....
> }
>
> The pull request is here: https://github.com/keplerproject/luarocks/pull/384
>
> Hopefully I haven't missed something and it can be merged.
>
> b) You have to install the same file multiple times.
>
> Okay, no-one is likely to miss a few kilobytes nowadays, and you can
> reduce duplication by shipping an unversioned script that just runs the
> versioned one, instead of duplicating it. Still this feels a bit
> hackish so I though a bit about implementing linking in LuaRocks, but
> there are a couple of problems. For one I can't think of a syntax that
> would be backwards-compatible, so that the rock would not fail on older
> versions of LuaRock (I assume this is important) and additionally lfs,
> which LuaRocks uses, doesn't support links on Windows, so they wouldn't
> be portable.
>
> In any case, as I've said your method works so I'll probably be going
> that way if my pull request isn't merged.
Your pull request can't be merged immediately in the current tree
because it breaks compatibility (ie, this rock would break for users
of older LuaRocks versions), but it's something to be considered in a
future LuaRocks 3.x tree (either merged into the core tool or perhaps
as an add-on).
-- Hisham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Luarocks-developers mailing list
Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
