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).
[1] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/devel:languages:lua/luajit
Hello all,
It'd be better to switch to luajit2 if it is possible. We can see
right now the main issue with luajit project is no response from
upstream of LuaJIT to previous merge request attempts. And luajit2
already contains almost everything needed for s390x support.
Thanks,
-Dipak
From the buildlogs / testlogs / local tests (ppc64el qemu), it seems that there is completely no improvement for ppc64el. Simple scripts can still encounter segmentation faults (e.g., autopkgtest for src:lua-moses).s390x is newly enabled. I still have not seen enough test log to give
Hi Mo, Paul,
did you see any improvement with luajit2 ?
I was looking at luakit, which still fails "silently" on ppc64el, a lua script generating a .h with no symbols with luajit2, where it does work
with lua.
Also I see that the autopkgtest of knot-resolver still fails on
ppc64el.
F.
On Thu, 19 May 2022 22:14:01 -0400 "M. Zhou" <lumin@debian.org> wrote:
On Thu, 2022-05-19 at 16:30 +0200, Frédéric Bonnard wrote:
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.
Nobody want to spend time on an bottomless hole ...
I'll simply remove ppc64el architecture support from src:luajit,
and give src:luajit2 (openresty) a try.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 307 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 93:52:41 |
Calls: | 6,849 |
Files: | 12,352 |
Messages: | 5,414,751 |