Last modified: 2013-12-06 17:18:58 UTC
During development, if the local repo is in a user-owned catalog, all of the files will typically be owned by the user including the Lua-engines. In that case the file permissions can be set to not include execute rights for others. If the Lua engine can't start the error reported is "Script error: Lua error: Internal error: The interpreter exited with status 126." This error is wrong as the Lua engine never executes in this case, it will not even start.
Note that "status 126" from bash means that the file to be executed was found but was not actually executable, so the error message is technically correct (if rather obscure).
The important thing is that it is a bash error, not a lua error.
You are complaining about the word "Lua" in the error message? Why don't you request something useful, like an explicit check if the Lua binary is executable before execution is attempted, with some helpful error message if it is not?
(In reply to comment #3) > like an explicit check if the Lua binary is > executable before execution is attempted, with some helpful error message if > it is not? That was done in Gerrit change #75819, so I'm closing this as fixed.
