On 06/10/2015 09:00 PM, Hisham wrote: > On 10 June 2015 at 14:44, Dimitris Papavasiliou<[email protected]> wrote: >> On 06/10/2015 06:10 PM, Hisham wrote: >>> 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). >> >> Why would it brake compatibility? Wouldn't the "versions" field simply >> be ignored by versions of LuaRocks which don't support the feature? >> >> I just tried the rock with my stock unmodified version of LuaRocks and >> it built and installed just fine. LuaRocks simply ignored the >> "versions" override and installed based on the default "install" field. > > In general LuaRocks reports an error when it finds an unknown field, > but given the various build types, it does not perform this check > inside the `build` table (build types really should have their own > table-checkers but currently don't). So this does not fail "by > accident". I'm uneasy about making use of this to extend the rockspec > specification. Rockspec authors could still use this in > compat-breaking ways (ie, providing values only inside `versions` > without a default).
Well, they can do the same thing with platform overrides which was to be expected, as they're implemented almost identically, but I don't want to press. I understand your concerns. Thanks for commenting! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
