On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 06:48:05PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 04:57:10PM +0100, Jochen Topf wrote: > > > In theory it's possible to build it twice, and provide both executables > > > via the alternatives system allowing the users to choose. > > > > > > But that's not something I'm willing to support. > > > > > > If have the time a resources available to actively maintain the > > > osm2pgsql package in Debian (including handling bugreports) you're > > > welcome to make this change. If I don't have to support it, my objection > > > to luajit in its current state is moot. > > > > Fair enough. > > > > Incidentally, current luajit in main does not distribute a -dev package or > even any headers/*.so. That could be an oversight or not. The luajit > maintainer should be taken in the loop to understand if that is viable, > before any other action. > > Note that the interpreter is compatible at API/ABI level > with the ordinary Lua 5.1 interpreter, but if osm2pgsql chooses to > explicitly build in different way the inners are probably different, and > could be officially exposed or not, or even stable or not. Finally, a check > with > osm2pgsql upstream is mandatory, the support for luajit could also be > dropped in the near future, wouldn't be the first time...
I am one of the "osm2pgsql upstream" and we have no intention to drop support for it, because the performance is so much better. That's why I started this thread. Osm2pgsql isn't doing much special with regards to LuaJIT, it is just a matter of which library to link to. But if Bas doesn't want to support it, that's totally understandable and I can live with that decision. Jochen -- Jochen Topf [email protected] https://www.jochentopf.com/ +49-351-31778688
