FS#36088 - [LuaRocks] not built with support for Lua 5.2
Attached to Project:
Community Packages
Opened by Pierre Chapuis (catwell) - Wednesday, 10 July 2013, 08:02 GMT
Last edited by Bartłomiej Piotrowski (Barthalion) - Wednesday, 15 January 2014, 19:08 GMT
Opened by Pierre Chapuis (catwell) - Wednesday, 10 July 2013, 08:02 GMT
Last edited by Bartłomiej Piotrowski (Barthalion) - Wednesday, 15 January 2014, 19:08 GMT
|
Details
Lua in [extra] has been updated to version 5.2 for a while
now,
but LuaRocks is still built with only Lua 5.1 support. Having Lua 5.1 support is nice because it also supports LuaJIT which is also in [community], so we need both. Fortunately LuaRocks is made to support both (see http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.luarocks/3978 for instance). I can see three options: 1) have a single luarocks package that supports both versions (with /usr/bin/luarocks and /usr/bin/luarocks-admin being symlinks to the 5.2 versions); 2) keep the current "luarocks" package and add a "luarocks52" package like the one in AUR (but removing the symlinks that conflict with luarocks like I did here https://raw.github.com/catwell/aur-packages/master/luarocks52/PKGBUILD); 3) make "luarocks" only support Lua 5.2 and maybe add a separate luarocks51 package for LuaJIT support, or drop it to AUR. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Bartłomiej Piotrowski (Barthalion)
Wednesday, 15 January 2014, 19:08 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Wednesday, 15 January 2014, 19:08 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Is anybody working on this? Do you need help?
I'd rather have 3 packages:
luarocks (5.2)
luarocks51
luarocks-luajit
But I don't know if it's best for luajit dependent packages to use the same luapath as 5.1 or to have a separate luapath.
I will be at Lua Workshop next month, we will discuss this kind of issue with people involved in Lua packaging. I will give you a more definitive answer after the event. In the meantime I think the best thing to do would be to ignore LuaJIT and just deal with 5.1 vs. 5.2.
We should not build LuaRocks with prefix=/usr. It causes issues like conflicts with system packages. We should use /usr/local: rocks are user-installed packages.
The issue then is that /usr/local should be in the Lua package paths (before /usr). Debian patches their luaconf.h for that purpose.
Regarding 5.1 / 5.2 / LuaJIT separation: I now really think they should be separed. There has been clear mention by Roberto Ierusalimschy that Lua and LuaJIT are increasingly going separate ways.
For naming I think we should always have versions in the names, so luarocks52 *and* luarocks51. It is possible that we see a Lua 5.3 soon. This versioning is not necessary for LuaJIT.