Lumin, you are welcome to become a co-maintainer. If it helps, I have a gitlab instance at gitlab.sury.org where I could import luajit packaging for easier collaboration (alioth is not really friendly for non-DDs).
Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server Knot Resolver (https://www.knot-resolver.cz/) – secure, privacy-aware, fast DNS(SEC) resolver On Mon, May 8, 2017, at 17:50, Lumin wrote: > Hi, > > @Ondřej > > I'm closing this bug you forgot to close in -beta3's changelog: > > 861871 luajit 2.1.0 beta3 available > > Thank you very much for response and the upload! > > If the luajit built for arm64 doesn't segfault on start, this bug can > also be closed: > > 818616 luajit: laujit segfaults on arm64 > > > @Gianfranco > > Caffe was alrealy in a good shape and it does not depend on luajit :-) > > Recall the Torch7 stack you sponsored, where all the source packages > are named lua-torch-*. The Torch7 stack needs luajit 2.1.0~beta* so > they are living with luajit in experimental. The whole Torch7 stack > will be migrated to unstable as long as luajit 2.1.0~beta* landed onto > unstable. There is only one core CUDA module which remains to be > packaged. > > > > On 8 May 2017 at 13:11, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> > wrote: > > Hello > > > >>We are in freeze and you are NMUing package in experimental after less > >>than 14 days? > > > > > > the RC bug is open since one year and two months, not exactly 14 days. > > one year ago has received a fix, and 5 months ago has been raised to RC. > > > > I wouldn't say exactly "14 days old bug" :) > > > >>Also luajit 2.1.0~beta3 was released on 1. May, so I have just packaged > >>that, and picked the cosmetic changes by Lumin. > > > > > > this is awesome! I deleted my upload from deferred queue > >>I didn't pick the debhelper related changes - first they do nothing for > >>luajit, and second this will just make the backporting much harder. > >>Please don't bump DH compat levels just for the sake of the "higher > >>number". > > > > > > I don't get this, > > "stable-bpo 10.2.5~bpo8+1" stable has debhelper 10 since some months, IIRC, > > and backporting to wheezy-sloppy is impossible by policy > > (since the change to debhelper 10 won't be part of stretch, the maximum > > backport > > suite you can reach will be stretch-backports and jessie-backports-sloppy, > > so > > the version requirement will be satisfied). > > > > (unless I didn't parse correctly your sentence) > > > > wrt debhelper 10, the --quilt switch should be useless, and the parallel > > builds > > might save some build time (even if it is already quick enough) > > > >>Also the binNMUability was done wrong. The common package was actually > >>just incorrectly marked as arch:any, and all it took was to put > >>Architecture: all in the right place. In fact, this was already fixed in > >>git... > > > > > > indeed, I somewhat wondered something had changed and that change was > > necessary, > > > > Re-reading this commit [1] makes more sense now :) > > > > [1] > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-lua/luajit.git/commit/debian/control?id=1cd32bce634cbe92788d1a144d5648cc94ed86b4 > > > >>Also please don't put various changes into one big huge patch, but use > >>git to split changes into individual patches, so we can work with that. > > > > > > I think changes are split in various files in the BTS tracker, but I have > > to check > > again. > > > > Anyhow, thanks a lot for fixing this issue, this is really appreciated, > > Lumin is working hard to bring caffe and its dependencies into a suitable > > shape in Debian, and luajit has been a blocker for quite some time :) > > (not your fault, caffe needs the experimental version, the unstable one is > > too old, > > so having RC bugs in experimental only is quite annoying for him). > > > > > > thanks a lot once again, > > > > Gianfranco > > > > -- > Best, > Lumin
