Bug#256283: [pylucene-dev] Re: PyLucence Debian Package
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
Once there is a Debian Java Lucene 1.9 source package available, the PyLucene
1.9 package could be made to depend on it, unpack it, apply the patches, build
it (and not install it) and then build itself. Seems pretty straightforward to
me.
Sorry, that's not how it works. Currently Java Lucene 1.4.3 is in Debian. That
does not mean the Java Lucene 1.4.3 source code is available to be used as
a build dependency.
That is why I mentioned a dependency on a Java Lucene *source* package. If
such a thing doesn't exist (pardon my ignorance) then this option will not
work.
A more likely scenario is what Matthew described - snapshot Java Lucene source
code and make that part of the PyLucene source package.
That'd be fine too.
Yet Another Option (what are we on now, 5? 6?) is for Debian to patch
it's version
of Java Lucene 1.9 to be compatible with PyLucene. This only makes sense if
the patches are benign - i.e. do not significantly interfere with
other users of Java
Lucene. For example, the eclipse people would go berserk if we broke
their build.
At the moment, the patches are not making any API changes nor incompatible
class changes although I'm not so sure about the last patch in patches.lucene
adding a new private final int to the class definition.
Also, there are other patches for the Java Lucene contrib packages in PyLucene
such as the regex contrib package which is patched to replace the dependency
on a java-based regex processing package with Python's.
In any case, I wouldn't assume that PyLucene patches are going to be that safe
always. I've had to make API renames in the source code in the past.
This makes this fifth option a non starter.
Let's try to boil this down into an immediate todo list:
1) Find out if Java Lucene 1.9 can compile with kaffe [JB? Barry? Anyone?]
Would compiling Java Lucene with Jikes qualify, or with Eclipse's ecj ?
Are these java compilers compatible with Debian's licensing requirements ?
Andi..
Reply to: