Bug#256283: [pylucene-dev] Re: PyLucence Debian Package
Jeff Breidenbach [breidenbach@gmail.com] said:
> However, it is technically possible to compile on Debian
> stable then upload the binary package to unstable (a.k.a.
> sid). This can - somewhat - bypass the swig issue and get
> a working PyLucene package in Debian for one architecture,
> presumably i386. Once the swig issue gets straightened
> out, the autobuilders will be able to handle the other
> architectures.
Okay, so this is what I'd want to do if the GCC folks
respond and say GCJ 3.4.x (x >= 3) will be in Unstable.
Since GCC 3.4.4 is in Unstable I'm mildly optimistic GCJ
3.4.x will be as well.
> The gcj situation is more serious. No way in hell can we
> package the gcj runtime inside the PyLucene package. As
> far as I can tell this is a showstopper, although I'm
> curious what the gcj package maintainers have to say about
> the matter.
Yes, I agree, without GCJ runtime support there can be no
PyLucene package. :(
> Finally, Matthew I'd like to know your estimated attention
> span as we consider the possibility of putting a
> semi-broken package into Debian. My comfort zone for [get
> it fairly good first] vs [put it in then improve it]
> shifts a little depending on whether you have short term
> or long term interest.
If things resolve themselves such that a package could
actually make it into Debian then I'd certainly take a
long-term responsibility for it. I'd like to see it happen.
As you suggested, if Andi agrees I think providing a link to
a .deb for Debian Stable (Sarge) from the PyLucene website
is the best short-term solution. This would take into
account the shifting RC status of Lucene 1.9, the GCJ issues
in Debian Unstable, the SWIG issues, and it makes something
available to folks.
-matthew
Reply to: