Closed mrcjkb closed 2 weeks ago
Does this PR follow the Contribution Guidelines? Following is a partial checklist:
Proper conventional commit scoping:
For example, fix(installer): some installer bugfix
[x] Pull request title has the appropriate conventional commit prefix.
If applicable:
Let's get this merged and I'll look into deprecating :Rocks packadd
in another PR.
Down to deprecate packadd as well. New changes look good to me!
With this PR, rocks.nvim maintains symlinks to the plugin runtime paths in
site/pack/luarocks/opt
.Because the symlinks are all in
opt
, they are available on the runtimepath before rocks.nvim initialises, but none of theplugin
,after/plugin
orftdetect
directories are sourced (rocks.nvim takes care of this for non-opt plugins).This brings with it some nice benefits:
colorscheme <scheme>
in their init.lua, as they might be used to from a traditional plugin manager (see #212).autoload
directories of dependencies are available on the runtimepath, which means vimscript plugins can be installed as dependencies.Not yet implemented (TODO):
rocks.runtime.packadd
can probably be replaced by a call to Neovim's built-inpackadd
[needs triage]. If this is the case, we can deprecate:Rocks packadd
andrequire("rocks").packadd
:vim.deprecate("rocks.packadd", "vim.cmd.packadd", "3.0.0", "rocks.nvim")
.