Closed mjlbach closed 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.
I went ahead and split the non-rockspec compatible proposal into its own PR
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?
@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
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.
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.
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".