Ondřej Surý <[email protected]> writes: > As I had couple of spare cycles, the updated package is now in experimental. > > I don't have the time to test all the downstream dependencies, so I would > appreciate if you can walk through all the packages that Build-Depend or > Depend on luajit and test whether everything works as expected. > > If you send me your salsa login, I can add you as a co-maintainer of the > luajit package. > > (I'm not subscribed to d-d). >
Thanks Ondřej! FYI to debian-devel@, further communication has been continuing on bug#781728. > Ondrej > -- > Ondřej Surý (He/Him) > [email protected] > >> On 19. 12. 2025, at 8:37, Xiyue Deng <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm now CCing debian-devel@. Please excuse the top posting where I >> explain the status quo and seek for advice. >> >> Bug#781728 is about enabling Lua 5.2 compatible mode in LuaJIT, which >> has been supported for at least 13 years (see the last commit touching >> the macro definition at [1]). The main client using this is Aegisub >> which since 3.4.2 requires LuaJIT to enable 5.2 compatible mode. >> Currently Aegisub embeds its own LuaJIT so as to enable this, but as the >> embedded official LuaJIT doesn't support some of the release archs >> e.g. ppc64el, riscv64, and s390x. The LuaJIT in Debian supports riscv64 >> and s390x and can support ppc64el in newer versions. I have filed >> Bug#1116248 to Aegisub for tracking. It would be great if the LuaJIT in >> Debian can just enable this so that Aegisub does not need to embed it. >> (Also CCing the Aegisub maintainer just in case.) >> >> There may be concerns on binary compatibility on enabling Lua 5.2 >> compatibility mode. I'm not an expert on library API/ABI compatibility, >> though I have done some rudimentary analysis based on library symbols, >> e.g. output of `nm -D' of libluajit-5.1.so.2.1.1737090214 from >> libluajit-5.1-2 package, and besides symbol addresses there is no diff >> (please see the nm-luajit-unpatched.txt, nm-luajit-patched.txt for the >> symbols before and after applying the patch, and >> nm-luajit-unpatched-vs-patched.diff for the diff). I think this should >> suggest that it is a safe change, and even if it is not, a transition >> should be sufficient to resolve any incompatibility. >> >> The reason for including debian-devel@ in the discussion is that there >> has been no reply from the Lua maintainers or package uploaders since. >> I'd like to first state that this email has no ill-intention, as people >> may be busy due to life, work, etc. so it's totally understandable. I >> would just like to try to move things forward. Of course, if the Lua >> maintainers or uploaders would like to provide any guidance it would >> still be welcome. But in case there is none, I wonder what would be the >> best way to proceed? As currently I don't claim that I have the >> required specialty to be an uploader, would a NMU be acceptable (and >> commit to Salsa so that this doesn't get lost)? As a DM, I would still >> need a sponsor if this is the way forward. >> >> Thanks in advance! And any advice (or suggestion to better handle this >> situation) would be appreciated. >> >> (Please also see below for previous communications on this bug.) >> >> Xiyue Deng <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Xiyue Deng <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> (CCing the package uploaders.) >>>> >>>> Xiyue Deng <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> Xiyue Deng <[email protected]> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 13:08:17 +0100 =?UTF-8?Q?Aniol_Mart=C3=AD?= >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Maintainer, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i am the maintainer of Aegisub. Version 3.4.0 was recently released but >>>>>>> it requires LuaJIT with Lua 5.2 compat. Are there any plans about >>>>>>> supporting it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are currently discussing it in >>>>>>> https://github.com/TypesettingTools/Aegisub/issues/239. One option that >>>>>>> I'm considering is bundling LuaJIT with Aegisub, but the Debian Policy >>>>>>> encourages not doing that. Do you know if there are any other packages >>>>>>> in a similar situation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Aniol >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As David mentioned in [1], this should be as simple as adding >>>>>> "-DLUAJIT_ENABLE_LUA52COMPAT" to CFLAGS and it should be ABI/API >>>>>> compatible. Please consider adding this support so that Aegisub and >>>>>> other packages can use it directly. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=781728#16 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Xiyue Deng >>>>> >>>>> I have tested adding the flags and the result is promising: aegisub can >>>>> now directly build against libluajit-5.1-dev built with the flags and >>>>> works well. >>>>> >>>>> I have created a MR on Salsa[1] and hope it can be reviewed and merged. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://salsa.debian.org/lua-team/luajit/-/merge_requests/3 >>>>> >>>> >>>> Friendly ping. This is a blocking issue for Aegisub and currently >>>> preventing it from migrating to Forky. >>>> >>>> Though my previous claim may be wrong that enabling this flag may >>>> probably require a transition. I would like to help analyze the >>>> situation and move this bug forward. TIA! >>>> >>> >>> Friendly ping. It's concerning that we still haven't heard back from >>> the Lua team, though it's understandable that the Lua team may be busy >>> with daily life/work. I intend to bring this topic to debian-devel@ for >>> comments next, not for pushing, but to seek for suggestions on resolving >>> this issue. >>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Xiyue Deng >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Xiyue Deng >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/commit/23932a6c8b7ef434bc963139b4160b1058fa6f7f >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Xiyue Deng >> <nm-luajit-patched.txt><nm-luajit-unpatched.txt><nm-luajit-unpatched-vs-patched.diff> > -- Regards, Xiyue Deng
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
