On 12 May 2016 at 19:39, Peter Billam <p...@pjb.com.au> wrote: > Greetings all, > > Hisham wrote: >> This is a document I wrote with a bunch of ideas on how to >> change the rockspec format to reduce the amount of tedious >> writing, make it less error-prone, improve portability, etc. > > Is it an adopted criterion that older rockspecs > should continue to work with the new LuaRocks ? > > At first glance that did seem to me to be the case ...
There is a rockspec_format field, so yes, there can be breaking changes. The absence of this field (as in all current rockspecs) implies rockspec_format="1.0", which LR 3 will still support, so older rockspecs will still be supported, even if the new format (which we will call "3.0", to sync with the app version number) changes completely. But I think it's best to keep existing constructs working in the new format whenever possible, so that the users' accumulated knowledge does not go to waste. -- Hisham ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched! https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
