search

neovim / packspec

ALPHA package dependencies spec
http://packspec.org/
Apache License 2.0
221 stars 2 forks source link

Rockspec compatible proposal #1

Closed mjlbach closed 2 years ago

mjlbach commented 2 years ago

The big thing to figure out is "sources", unlike luarocks we can't reference packages by name if we intend for this to be used without a source repository. We could add a nested field "url".

mjlbach commented 2 years ago

I think there is still some tension between compatibility with rockspec and simplifying things that could be simplified if we choose to unambiguously use our own format, mostly around the dependency/dependency sources.

mjlbach commented 2 years ago

I went ahead and split the non-rockspec compatible proposal into its own PR

wbthomason commented 2 years ago

I will admit that I'm not really clear on the motivation for maintaining Rockspec compatibility. Currently, only packer supports installing rocks, and unless we're going to start putting Neovim plugins on Luarocks, it's unlikely that we need luarocks to be able to install Neovim plugins. Do you mind presenting the argument in favor of compatibility?

mjlbach commented 2 years ago

@teto was actually experimenting with putting neovim packages on luarocks, that was the main motivation

See, for example: https://luarocks.org/modules/teto/gitsigns.nvim

shadmansaleh commented 2 years ago

I think It'll be better if we simplify our spec where possible without being stuck for rockspec compatibility. Because it's not a rockspec file , luarocks won't accept it . If we want we could generate a rockspec file easily from this either way as long as the required data is in the file , compatible format doesn't matter in this case.

mjlbach commented 2 years ago

Sure, we can iterate on that here:

https://github.com/nvim-lua/nvim-package-specification/pull/2

I want to keep these as separate alternatives for now.