Hi Mo, On 03-06-2022 07:09, M. Zhou wrote:
Long story short, src:luajit does not work on ppc64el because the upstream is completely not interested in supporing IBM archs https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1011297
Ack.
So I uploaded luajit2, which at least passed hello world smoke test on IBM arches including ppc64el and s390x. https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=luajit2
May I ask what your reason is to have both? Why not replace luajit with luajit2 and be done with it?
So I changed the dependency template for bin:libluajit-5.1-2
You use the word template several times in your message. Do you mean template in the sense that it's manually applied in all places, or is there automation involved I'm not aware of?
from libluajit-5.1-2 into libluajit-5.1-2 | libluajit2-5.1-2
Related to my question of why keep both, why not the reverse order?
Since both packages Provides libluajit-5.1.so.* Thus, this is not a usual transition with ABI bump. I want to rebuild all luajit reverse dependencies so that the dependency
Rebuild, or change source and reupload?
template for them will be updated. In that case the corresponding reverse dependencies can smoothly start to use libluajit2-5.1-2, especially for ppc64el architecture.
If you're not changing the source of all those reverse dependencies, how does that work?
When the rebuild is done, we should be able to safely remove ppc64el architecture for src:luajit .
Well, as I filed RC bugs against all reverse dependencies of src:luajit to switch their (build-)dependency on ppc64el to lua, we'll be able to do this shortly anyways.
PaulPS: I'd rather had it that you'd file a bug already to have this discussion. It's much easier to track than our high volume mail list as it keeps the pieces together.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature