LuaLS / LuaLS/luarocks-build-addon
rockspec conventions
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Lua
- Stars
- 11
- Forks
- 2
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Addons designed for LuaRocks will probably need to follow certain conventions so they can be easily identified and discovered.
This is what I propose:
-
The
packagefield (its name) should start withlls-addon-, to clearly differentiate them from normal rocks that offer functionality at runtime. -
If the addon reflects the types of an existing module, like penlight:
- the
packagefield should also reflect the original rock's package name, e.g.lls-addon-penlight. - the
versionfield should start with the original rock's version followed by a dot and the addon rock's version, e.g.1.14.0.1.0-1. Hopefully, this should make it so that if a rock decides to make the addon rock a build dependency, it only needs to specify something like"lls-addon-penlight ~> 1.14.0.1".
- the
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
The issue names no files, tests, or entry points; begin by reviewing how this LuaRocks build backend currently identifies addon rocks. Compare the proposed package and version conventions with existing rockspec handling, and define the convention and acceptance criteria before implementation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- lua
- Domain
- build-system, tooling
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100