Bug#256283: [pylucene-dev] Re: PyLucence Debian Package
Jeff Breidenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi, I did a little digging. Package gcj-3.4 was removed from Debian Unstable on Aug 14, 2005 because it was Not Built by Source I also did some digging. I found the same removal message and then tracked down a gcj maintainer IRC. He simply said: doko moconnor: we only want to have one gcj version So, that's that. Also, all the gcj-3.4 bugs were reassigned to gcj-4.0. * Swig sounds like it is progressing just fine. I was able to build PyLucene with what will be SWIG 1.3.28. However, PyLucene failed to load. So work is needed there but at least it's not generating bad stuff, that's a plus. PyLucene only works with Python 2.4 so to make use of it ensure you are using /usr/bin/python2.4 and not /usr/bin/python. * Mathew, the PyLucene module will not be found if one tries to import it from python 2.3 right? I don't have the PyLucene package in front of me to double check this. Correct. It goes in /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/. I figured this was a fine place b/c it is where python2.4-elementtree puts itself. * I guess backports.org is still an open question. Anyway, great job on getting this far with the sarge packages. Matthew, you've already made a significant positive difference, and I'm already hearing positive comments. Most recently from a hacker at PARC (my employer) who is actively migrating an internal application called UpLib from Java Lucene towards PyLucene. Cool. I submitted the repository to http://www.apt-get.org as well. As asked around and it looks like the backports.org path is as you describe: unstable or testing packages which get backported. -matthew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#256283: [pylucene-dev] Re: PyLucence Debian Package
Jeff Breidenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#256283: [pylucene-dev] Re: PyLucence Debian Package
Jeff Breidenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Matthew, I just built your package on sarge, it went fine. Good job. python2.4-pylucene_1.9-1_i386.deb I noticed you chose not to have a README.Debian file. That's probably ok, since most of the weirdness affects package maintainers and not package users. On the other hand, you might want to create one and include a link to this conversation (bug 256283) in case the end user is wondering why the heck it isn't included in Debian proper. Your call. Thank you! I will add a README.Debian, it's a good suggestion. I have access to Debian amd64 and PowerPC architectures. If building for them is identical to building for i386 then I can make those available as well. Andi, how about distributing the binary package (.deb) from the PyLucene website while things are shaking out? Or perhaps Matthew can distribute from canonical.org, and have a link from the PyLucene homepage? This can be done immediately, allows Debian sarge users to try out the package and provide feedback, and will make a few people's lives a little easier. I can't think of any disadvantages. This sounds like a good idea to me. I can rebuild the package for i386, with the README.Debian, and make it available later today. Jeff and Andi, thanks for your time on this so far. Your help is appreciated! -matthew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#256283: [pylucene-dev] Re: PyLucence Debian Package
Andy, I compiled PyLucene 1.9rc1-7 for the i386, amd64, and powerpc Debian architectures. I created an APT repository because I figured it would be easier to manage. So if you add the follow instructions to your website they should make sense to any Debian user: There are binary PyLucene 1.9rc1-7 Debian Stable (Sarge) packages for the i386, amd64, and powerpc architectures. To install PyLucene add the following apt repository to your /etc/apt/sources.list file: deb http://www.canonical.org/debian/ sarge main then run the following commands: apt-get update apt-get install python2.4-pylucene PyLucene only works with Python 2.4 so to make use of it ensure you are using /usr/bin/python2.4 and not /usr/bin/python. Any questions / concerns, just tell me and I'll change whatever you need. Oh, one last thing, in addition to adding a README.Debian file I added the samples and test cases to the documentation set. The /usr/share/doc/python2.4-pylucene/README.Debian file gives instructions on how to run them. -matthew Andi Vajda [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sun, 5 Feb 2006, Jeff Breidenbach wrote: Andi, how about distributing the binary package (.deb) from the PyLucene website while things are shaking out? Or perhaps Matthew can distribute from canonical.org, and have a link from the PyLucene homepage? This can be done immediately, allows Debian sarge users to try out the package and provide feedback, and will make a few people's lives a little easier. I can't think of any disadvantages. +1 Where can I get the package from ? (I don't have a Debian system available to me to build it myself). Alternatively, I could also just put a link to the package - hosted elsewhere - onto the PyLucene homepage. Either way is fine. Andi.. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#256283: [pylucene-dev] Re: PyLucence Debian Package
Jeff Breidenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Andi, Debian's infrastructure is designed such that a source package is not allowed to be a build dependency. Matthew, please file a wishlist bug against swig, requesting a version update. I think I confused the issue. Unstable has SWIG 1.3.27. PyLucene requires version 1.3.24, which is older. So I don't think a wishlist bug is appropriate here. Also, PyLucene requires GCJ 3.4.x, x = 3. However, unstable has 4.0.2. This is an even more egregious issue because even providing a .jar in the source package would not be enough since that version of gcj would produce bad results (everything compiles, nothing works). I don't think a build on unstable is currently possible. PyLucene requires versions of GCJ and SWIG which are too old to be in Debian unstable. So, I see the open issues as follows: 1. PyLucene and/or SWIG needs to change so that the version of SWIG in Debian Unstable can be used. 2. PyLucene and/or GCJ 4.0 needs to change so that the version of GCJ in Debian Unstable can be used. 3. PyLucene may or may not compile from source with a free software JDK (e.g. free-java-sdk package). Of course, as time passes, the particular version of GCJ and SWIG in Unstable will change. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think making a package for Debian Unstable is possible right now unless everything PyLucene needs is statically linked into its .so. The way Andi currently distributes binary packages won't fly in Debian; at least I can't imagine having the pylucene package provide /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 would be okay with folks. FWIW, it is possible to build a package for Debian Stable (Sarge), but that's just b/c Sarge includes all the old stuff PyLucene needs. So I'm at a loss as to what to do, other than wait. Anyone else? -matthew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#256283: [pylucene-dev] Re: PyLucence Debian Package
Jeff Breidenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Given Andi's comments, one possibility is to put the PyLucene package into Debian, but under the contrib section and marking it with appropriate bug entries. The hope would be people could improve the build situation over time. Personally, I'm fine with it going into contrib. I'd like it to go into main but that's probably not feasible unless there's a DFSG-free JDK that could compile it. Another possibility - maybe - is to package an older version of PyLucene that depends on Java Lucene 1.4.3. However, I suspect there are likely to be similar issues and an upatched Java Lucene 1.4.3 will not be a viable build dependency either. Andi, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe PyLucene has always required patches to Lucene's source code. This is the impression I get from the README: http://svn.osafoundation.org/pylucene/trunk/README A third possibility is to simply wait and hope the situation gets better. Since both Java Lucene 1.9 and PyLucene have an rc in their version numbers, this is not a completely crazy idea. On the other hand, it may be a really long wait. We could wait until Lucene 1.9 is official, that'd be fine. However, I don't expect that will change things much since it's my understanding that the issues are mostly with GCJ. Is that right Andi? Andi would know better if waiting for GCJ to mature is a good idea. In Sept. 2004 Andi seemed to be mildly optimistic that gcj 3.5.0 would eliminate the need for patches. See the bottom half of: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=256283#msg25 However, that doesn't seem to have panned out. See this email: http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/pylucene-dev/2006-February/000815.html (I'm assuming here gcc 3.5 is more or less the same as gcc 4.0). A fourth possibility is to modify the Debian PyLucene package such that it first builds the patched Java Lucene .jar from .java files. That's kind of messy, and redundant, but may not have any blockers. Let me see if I have this suggestion right. The pylucene source package would include a patched fork of the Lucene code. Those sources get compiled with Java Lucene's Ant build using a regular 1.4.2 JDK. This produces a .class file that we then compile with GCJ. If that's right then that sounds fine to me. However, if I understand Debian Policy right, that'd would almost certainly mean it'd have to go in contrib. Which, as I said, is fine with me. ... So I'm a little vague on where to go from here. In my opinion your fourth option is the best. If you think it's wise, I could back off and package the PyLucene 1.0.1 tree which is based on the Lucene 1.4.3 sources. That'd side-step the fact that 1.9 is still a release candidate. What do you say? Thanks for taking time to look over the package and give your comments! -matthew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#256283: [pylucene-dev] Re: PyLucence Debian Package
Jeff Breidenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Andi is correct, Java Lucene 1.4.3 compiles ok with a Free Software toolchain. Specifically we use kaffe. Getting this to work took a lot of time and effort. It is unknown at this time whether the release candidate for Java Lucene 1.9 can be built using kaffe. Oh, yes. I thought it did not and that was why it was in contrib. I've finally upgraded one of my spare computers to unstable so I can test for real. 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. As Andi implied, this option seems kind of sketchy and not very future proof. That seems to just be the nature of the beast. Besides, the Eclipse people scare me :) 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?] If it can be compiled with the software stack that gets installed from the free-java-sdk virtual package, is that good enough? That does not appear to install kaffee. I'll play around with trying to get this to work. Andi, when you normally compile the Lucene code which JDK do you use and on which platform (sorry if you answered this elsewhere)? Before I begin I want to verify I can at least reproduce what Andi is doing before I try to attempt a build with a totally free software Java stack. However, don't let my trying stop anyone else from trying or asking around. 2) Look for other issues in the current PyLucene package [JB] I already noticed that unstable has swig 1.2.27, which Andi says will not work. So, that's another issue. :( In any case, my vote is to pick an approach that gets something in Debian sooner rather than later. Programmer attention span is a rare commodity and we should strike while it is hot. Okay, I'll try to build it with a free software java stack. However, if that proves too difficult is building it with a non-free JDK and putting the package in contrib an option? -matthew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#256283: PyLucence Debian Package
Jeff, In October of 2004 you offered to look over and sponsor a PyLucene Debian package for Jeff Bowden. In case you don't recall here is the last email from the WNPP bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=256283#msg60 I was hoping you'd give me the same advice and sponsorship you offered Jeff Bowden. I currently have PyLucene packaged and building without any errors or lintian warnings. If you'd like you can see what I have done here: http://panacea.canonical.org/~matthew/pylucene-debian.tar.gz This is a packaging of PyLucene 1.9rc1-7, which I did on Debian Stable (Sarge). What I've been doing to build is the following: # Download the above tarball tar -xzvf pylucene-debian.tar.gz cd pylucene-debian cd python2.4-pylucene-1.9 debuild -us -uc I think it'd be great for there to be a Debian package for PyLucene. However, now that I've gotten this far I don't know where to go from here. -matthew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#256283: PyLucence Debian Package
Thanks Jeff! I have no time line in mind. The sooner the better I suppose since this is the head space I am in right now. Using the following checklist as a guide: http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/sponsorship_checklist.html I'd have to assume the next step, for me, is to try and get the package to build in Unstable. While the next step for you would be to look over my debian/* files for sanity. Does that sound right? If that's right then we can proceed asynchronously for now. I can try to get it to go on Sid and you can respond with comments/suggestions on the stuff I've already linked to once you get a chance. Here's the url again: http://panacea.canonical.org/~matthew/pylucene-debian.tar.gz On a related note I'm mostly, but not exclusively, interested in this making it into backports.org. You have any idea how that happens? I'm still interested in seeing PyLucene in Unstable but having a backports.org package available for Sarge would be neat too. However, first things first I suppose. As for Ubuntu, no connection. About a decade ago a bunch of my friends and I bought canonical.org based on the famous Richard Stallman / Guy Steele quote You just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. Thanks Again! -matthew Jeff Breidenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Matthew, Thank you for the refresher. Yes I am willing to help, including package review, discussion and sponsorship into Debian. What timeline are you targeting? Also, from your email address, I'm guessing you have a connection with Ubuntu. Can you please briefly elaborate? Thanks, Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
