> On May 29, 2018, at 22:26, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
>
> I'd previously been using 4.9.0. Making a huge jump in release numbers is
> scary. Will it invalidate existing indexes?
Yes, Lucene N (where N is a major release) only supports N, N - 1 indexes and
maybe (?) N - 2 read only (unsure). So yes, your Lucene 4 indexes are dead in
Lucene 7.
> Has the Lucene API changed a lot?
Yes, for every major release, there are deprecations and API breakages. Changes
are well documented but still a pain to migrate to.
> Will I be forced to migrate to python 3?
No, PyLucene (JCC in fact) supports both Python 2 and Python 3. This, since JCC
3 was released with PyLucene 6. I see no reason to drop support for Python 2.
> That said, I was desperate and tried
> all the official releases (4.10.1, 6.2.0, 6.4.1, 6.5.0). It just so happened
> that
> 4.10.1 was the first thing I got to work.
>
> Here are things I ran into. Just mentioning them, not asking for changes.
>
> The distribution packages for python-lucene is totally busted.
> I made the original package, someone else updated it in 2013,
> but it was all built against openjdk-7-jdk which is long gone.
Nowadays, Java major releases happen a lot faster and Lucene keeps up.
> I think python-setuptools that ship with Ubuntu 18.04 do not include
> shared support. The jcc/patches no longer apply. I ended up hacking
> the heck out of it (including copying files from older versions of Ubuntu)
> to add shared support.
These patch files shouldn't be necessary anymore, JCC monkeypatches as needed.
> I think had some trouble with conflicting JVMs and really only got things
> working after removing all but one from the system.
Yes, that's expected.
> I got confused by python setup.py build; I kept modifying setup.py and
> trying to rebuild, but didn't notice it didn't actually rebuild. Ended up
> doing
> a lot of rm -rf once I realized this.
Yes, rm -rf build is necessary.
> There are a lot of if statements in jcc/setup.py that try to reason about
> shared support. I often got confused what it thought. Ended up removing
> all the ifs and locking everything to shared.
They try to figure what to monkeypatch.
> Due to sleepiness, for a while I mistakenly thought this line was a
> typo in the Makefile and was supposed to be two separate lines.
> ANT=JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-oracle /usr/bin/ant
>
> It looks like libjava.so and libjvm.so in openjdk-11-jdk are in different
> directories compared to openjdk-8-jdk.
Quite possibly so, but I haven't tried that version yet. Does Lucene 4 even
build and run with Java 11 ?
Andi..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
