Hi, I've followed luajit closely since 2015 on ppc64el as a porter without enough knowledge to port it, but trying to ease on the packaging/Debian side (being both IBMer/DD). That port has been a mixed effort between a code bounty and an IBM effort (some devs) . It didn't started well ( https://www.freelists.org/post/luajit/PPC64le-port-status,1 ) and it has never grown and be really part of the upstream project sadly. With the years, I'm even less optimistic as no IBM nor external developer seem to be working on that. Mike Pall seems to be around though as you said there's no release (not necessarily a bad sign). I can ping inside IBM but I'm not sure there will be any positive feedback. So I'd say we have no choice, i.e. let's drop IBM arches . What I did a few times for packages depending on libluajit was to use liblua instead : https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=892765 Thanks, F. On Wed, 11 May 2022 21:29:26 -0400 "M. Zhou" <lumin@debian.org> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I learned in disappointment after becoming LuaJit uploader that > the LuaJit upstream behaves uncooperatively especially for IBM > architectures [1]. IIUC, the upstream has no intention to care > about IBM architectures (ppc64el, s390x). > > The current ppc64el support on stable is done through cherry-picked > out-of-tree patch. And I learned that the patch is no longer > functional[2] for newer snapshots if we step away from that > ancient 2.1.0~beta3 release. > > However, architectures like amd64 needs relatively newer version[3], > while IBM architecture still has demand luajit[4] (only the > ancient version will possibly work on IBM archs). > > I'm looking for suggestions on what to do next: > > option 1: > drop IBM architectures that the upstream cannot support > from src:luajit, and provide archs like amd64 with relatively > newer snapshot versions[5]. > and package reliable alternatives (if any) for IBM archs. > option 2: > use latest source for amd64 architecture, and rollback the > source specifically for IBM architectures to keep it > functional. > option 3: > rollback to the ancient stable release and screw it > option 4: > ... > > Thanks. > > [1] https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/pull/140 > [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1004511 > [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=981808 > [4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1008858 > [5] Yes ... the upstream do not release anymore. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature