Hi there! For now, =neovim-9999 fails to build, throwing an errors and statig that it trying to use > /var/tmp/portage/app-editors/neovim-9999/work/neovim-9999_build/luajit as Lua interpreter (where `luajit` comes from `-DLUA_PRG="${ELUA}"` in ebuild). It seems, previously it was just using the value of LUA_PRG, and now - somewhy appends it to $BUILD_DIR. Bisecting showed that such breakage was introduced here: https://github.com/neovim/neovim/commit/c50951a4d0cf480aa138a2ed2bd2deedebeb0dec So, we need to think about fix, as next release (0.9.6) will inherit that behaviour. I can create a PR on GH fith fix, but I think, we need to decide about what would be the right way to fix that. I already said my thoughts on IRC on #gentoo-vim, but will repeat here in #c1 Reproducible: Always
(In reply to Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov (mva) from comment #0) > So, we need to think about fix, as next release (0.9.6) will inherit that > behaviour. You sure? 0.9.x is branched. 0.9.x releases were already made since that commit landed.
(I'm late to #c1, but anyway): I think about following solution: As `lua-single.eclass` already sets up wrapper at `${T}/${ELUA}/bin/lua` (and adds it to $PATH (just neovim somewhy don't want to use $PATH and uses $BUILD_DIR to append LUA_PRG value). So, -DLUA_PRG="${T}/${ELUA}/bin/lua" looks like a way to go (I already locally tested it, and it fixes the problem, so we just need to decide if it is okay, and I can then fix 9999 ebuild, if nobody objects. WDYT?
(In reply to Sam James from comment #1) > (In reply to Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov (mva) from comment #0) > > So, we need to think about fix, as next release (0.9.6) will inherit that > > behaviour. > > You sure? 0.9.x is branched. 0.9.x releases were already made since that > commit landed. Well, yes, probably that would be 0.10 (which anyway there are rumors about). I am, of course, can't be 100% sure this commit be merged to `release-0.9` branch (as I can't also be sure otherwise), but since 0.10 is still not branched, I pretty sure it will take this commit when it will be. SO, we will anyway need to fix that. And, anyway, suggested fix don't break any comatibility (and will anyway be only applied to 9999 for now), so I'd vote for it :shrug:
Created attachment 882376 [details, diff] fix finding luajit in live @Vadim we have seen this issue before, @Sam had helped me fix this but I'm not sure how this commit got lost/reverted. Can you please try out this patch and see if the live ebuild is buildable.
(In reply to listout from comment #4) > Created attachment 882376 [details, diff] [details, diff] > fix finding luajit in live > > @Vadim we have seen this issue before, @Sam had helped me fix this but I'm > not sure how this commit got lost/reverted. Can you please try out this > patch and see if the live ebuild is buildable. Must have been this commit [1] from last week [1]: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/beea6ed74eb77f3f16cb60e441cf51afd08ccc71
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=b603c4da67de50aca62559471bf59b72f9f4059d commit b603c4da67de50aca62559471bf59b72f9f4059d Author: Brahmajit Das <brahmajit.xyz@gmail.com> AuthorDate: 2024-01-16 06:27:19 +0000 Commit: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2024-01-16 06:38:01 +0000 app-editors/neovim: fix finding luajit in live Commit 7b054106ef5a1fd742fb23886173d8c5a842d715 was lost with commit beea6ed74eb77f3f16cb60e441cf51afd08ccc71, thus introducing bug 922138. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/922138 Signed-off-by: Brahmajit Das <brahmajit.xyz@gmail.com> Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/34833 Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> app-editors/neovim/neovim-9999.ebuild | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
@listout, @sam Btw, is it any advantages of this way (symlink) over changing -DLUA_PRG value?
