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
Lua 5.4 support in rockspec #22
Conversation
After this is merged the new rockspec should be uploaded to luarocks.org. Currently if you try to install date with luarocks for 5.4 you get a very old version installed that had an unrestricted lua_version value |
thx @leafo rock was uploaded, let me know if something is missing |
well that didn't work...
|
beats me...
(LuaRocks 3.3.1) |
https://luarocks.org/modules/tieske/date it looks like the new revision wasn't uploaded, I only see revision 2 here and not 3. How did you upload it? Maybe bug prevented it from going up? |
I removed it again, since it fails to install, but haven't figured out why it fails (see msgs above) |
Not sure what happened but I pushed the latest version to the module owned by your account. It appears to be working https://luarocks.org/modules/tieske/date/2.1.2-3 |
Actually it's still broken, but I see what's wrong. I'll have a fix in a moment |
Okay so the issue is that you moved the source file to the src directory, and updated the versioned rockspec to the new path, but the version'd rockspec depends on the tar created by the tag which was created before things were moved. So the rockspec no longer works with the tag. Generally on my projects I tend to run a (Also it probably didn't look broken locally because it would looking at the current directory instead of installing for the tar file when using I think to solve all this though a new version should just be pushed. But in the meantime I've pushed a hotfixed rockspec to luarocks.org. |
pushed a new version. Thx for the troubleshooting! |
I decided to just bump the rockspec revision since the library already seems to work fine with no changes. I did notice the VERSION value was wrong though, so we could consider a minor version bump as well.