On Feb 22, 2016 2:18 AM, "John Paul Adrian Glaubitz" < [email protected]> wrote: > > Control: reopen -1 > > On 02/22/2016 05:23 AM, James McCoy wrote: > > After talking with them, I'm going to close this. Neovim is likely > > to become even more reliant on luajit in the future, so > > conditionally depending on it isn't really an option. > > No, I'm sorry. This isn't the correct way to handle this. You either > update the Architecture list in debian/control or you make neovim > use LuaC when it cannot use LuaJIT.
LuaC didn't provide FFI, as I understand it, which is why LuaJIT is being used. > I will file a bug report upstream and reopen this because closing > the bug report without doing anything and leaving neovim > "BD-Uninstallable" is not a proper fix at all. This is entirely appropriate. As LuaJIT gains support for more architectures, neovim will automatically get built. Cheers, James
