>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
any prelimin
Hi Frédéric,
On 09-06-2022 16:19, Frédéric Bonnard wrote:
did you see any improvement with luajit2 ?
Improvements, yes. All fixed, no.
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.
Als
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
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 bou
Hi Dipack,
I filed an ITP bug for luajit2 and will look into it.
Thank you!
On Mon, 2022-05-16 at 16:22 +, Dipak Zope1 wrote:
> 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 LuaJI
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://w
om: M. Zhou
Date: Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 8:07 AM
To: debian-devel
Subject: [EXTERNAL] needs suggestion on LuaJit's IBM architecture dilemma
Hi folks,
I learned in disappointment after becoming LuaJit uploader that
the LuaJit upstream behaves uncooperatively especially for IBM
architectures
Hi!
On 5/12/22 03:29, M. Zhou wrote:
> 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 ppc6
Hi folks,
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 c
9 matches
Mail list logo
