"Kamil Rytarowski" <n54%gmx.com@localhost> writes: > Currently we maintain two versions of Lua in pkgsrc: 5.1 and > 5.2. However they are conflicting, because they install binaries as > bin/lua. It prevents me for easily using unmodified software designed > for Lua 5.1 (like Luapress) in a system where the main version is Lua > 5.2. The Lua generations 5.1 and 5.2 aren't fully compatible. > > Python packages ships with versioned binaries: python2.6, python2.7, > python3.3. > > Could we follow the same pattern for Lua? We may be soon ready for > inclusion of Lua 5.3 without damaging the current Lua ecosystem, as > the backward compatibility between 5.3 and earlier generations is > still unknown. We could, but this is a somewhat difficult decision. For perl, we have only one version, and in theory the newer version can run the old cold. In practice, that's either true or close enough. python, especially with 3.3, is clearly not adequately compatible. Being able to have multiple versions drags in quite a lot of work. So the question is how much pain only having one lua version installed at once causes, and if that pain is more than or less than the pain of implementing multiple simultaneous version support. And, it's about who is pained, and if they fix it :-) Are you saying that luapress really doesn't work with lua52? That is a good argument that lua should be versioned like python. That will lead to any lua library that could be used by something else having to be lua-foo, and hence lua51-foo vs lua52-foo. So this is a fair bit of churn, but maybe needed churn.
Attachment:
pgpuW25K6dxPb.pgp
Description: PGP signature