[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Using optional components in packages

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 06:48:05PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 04:57:10PM +0100, Jochen Topf wrote:
> > > In theory it's possible to build it twice, and provide both executables
> > > via the alternatives system allowing the users to choose.
> > > 
> > > But that's not something I'm willing to support.
> > > 
> > > If have the time a resources available to actively maintain the
> > > osm2pgsql package in Debian (including handling bugreports) you're
> > > welcome to make this change. If I don't have to support it, my objection
> > > to luajit in its current state is moot.
> > 
> > Fair enough.
> > 
> Incidentally, current luajit in main does not distribute a -dev package or
> even any headers/*.so.  That could be an oversight or not. The luajit
> maintainer should be taken in the loop to understand if that is viable,
> before any other action.
> Note that the interpreter is compatible at API/ABI level
> with the ordinary Lua 5.1 interpreter, but if osm2pgsql chooses to
> explicitly build in different way the inners are probably different, and
> could be officially exposed or not, or even stable or not. Finally, a check
> with
> osm2pgsql upstream is mandatory, the support for luajit could also be
> dropped in the near future, wouldn't be the first time...

I am one of the "osm2pgsql upstream" and we have no intention to drop
support for it, because the performance is so much better. That's why I
started this thread.

Osm2pgsql isn't doing much special with regards to LuaJIT, it is just a
matter of which library to link to.

But if Bas doesn't want to support it, that's totally understandable and
I can live with that decision.

Jochen Topf  jochen@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688

Reply to: