-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 112
Stop inhibiting Lua 5.4 #50
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
This updated rockspec being published to LuaRocks is the last hold up for being able to release SILE with Lua 5.4 support. |
|
Looking... |
brimworks
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the contribution! I'd like to keep an upper bound, and I'd prefer to not be required to checkin all these old versions of rockspecs. Is that really required?
| license = "MIT" | ||
| } | ||
| dependencies = { | ||
| "lua >= 5.1" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm reluctant to remove the upper bound since minor versions of Lua often change the C API in backwards incompatible ways.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
True, Lua's release schedule and versioning is less than stellar. That being said 5.3.5 to 5.4 didn't seem to break much this time around. I got kind of frustrated having to track down a bunch of LuaRock maintainers to bump upper bounds for things that I knew worked fine in my project if I patched out the restrictions. I'd prefer running the risk of running into the breakage myself on new versions of Lua than being guaranteed breakage because module authors pre-emptively blocked it.
| @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ | |||
| package = "lua-zlib" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't there a better way to do this that doesn't involve keeping around all these old rockspec files?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not that I know of. LuaRocks is kind of a pain in this regard. Having to change file names when the internal version changes does not play well with source control, but this is both a common hack and the most functional one I've seen as far as covering use cases without breaking Git.
|
I've cloned your branch to my repository and added a commit so there is still an upper bound (not sure how to do that in the context of this PR): I'm going to do a bit of testing on 5.4, and if that goes well, then I'll push and upload the rock spec. Again, I appreciate the contribution! |
Closes #49.
As far as I can tell this works fine under Lua 5.4, you just have to let it happen. This updates the rockspec (rockrel 1) to remove the upper bounds currently blocking installation on Lua 5.4, then does some housekeeping to expose previously released versions (so they can be installed from Github directly without using luarocks.org if needed). Lastly it adds an SCM version so that any future development activity on master can be used & tested using luarocks from the master branch. Note this SCM rockspec will also make it easier to add CI testing to this repository (which I can contribute later).
This leaves you with 2 rockspecs to publish on Luarocks.org, the -1 release of the current version plus an SCM one.