On 16 Mar 2013, at 23:16, steve donovan <steve.j.dono...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Gary V. Vaughan <g...@vaughan.pe> wrote: >> Well, I would say that it's up to the rock that has the dependency to decide, >> because the APIs may not be identical - as is the case with the two yaml libs > > Totally. We assume that the package is a grown-up and can does > pcall(require,'whatever') to work out what interface to use. > > LR here acts as the friendly host who will provide two kinds of beers, > with the first beer considered the most preferred. > > So the package needs to indicate that it is quite relaxed about what > kind of beer it will drink, as long as it comes from a list. > > (This metaphor is probably not scalable)
After a little more thought, perhaps virtual dependencies is not the right term, because it more or less implies some kind of interface contract... it's much simpler than that, we just need to be able to say in our rockspec: "I'd like either luaYAML or lyaml, and it's up to me to figure out which one you gave me - although I prefer earlier items in my list of alternatives if you have to install one especially." Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT vaughan DOT pe) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
