Your message dated Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:36:53 +0200
with message-id <51cb0a95.7000...@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#679365: pylucene: Please generate backwards compatible 
Java bytecode
has caused the Debian Bug report #679365,
regarding pylucene: Please generate backwards compatible Java bytecode
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
679365: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=679365
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: pylucene
Version: 3.5.0-1
Severity: important
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: openjdk-7-transition


Hi,

When building pylucene with Java7 as default java it FTBFS because jcc
does not recognise Java7 bytecode.  Please see attached patch as an
example of how to solve this.  You can test the patch with the
binaries of java-common in experimental.

NB: pylucene still FTBFS when this patch is applied, but it gives a
different error[1], which I believe is unrelated to Java7 and just a
general FTBFS.  You will get a second bug if I can reproduce that in a
sid chroot.

~Niels

[1] ValueError: (<Class: class 
org.apache.lucene.analysis.pt.PortugueseStemmer>, 'python class name already in 
use, use --rename', u'PortugueseStemmer', <Class: class 
org.tartarus.snowball.ext.PortugueseStemmer>)
diff -Nru pylucene-3.5.0/debian/ant.properties pylucene-3.5.0/debian/ant.properties
--- pylucene-3.5.0/debian/ant.properties	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ pylucene-3.5.0/debian/ant.properties	2012-06-28 10:15:05.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+# Ensure that source and target are 1.5
+# For backwards compat on Java 7
+ant.build.javac.source=1.5
+ant.build.javac.target=1.5
diff -Nru pylucene-3.5.0/debian/changelog pylucene-3.5.0/debian/changelog
--- pylucene-3.5.0/debian/changelog	2012-04-24 00:12:29.000000000 +0200
+++ pylucene-3.5.0/debian/changelog	2012-06-28 10:17:44.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+pylucene (3.5.0-1.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
+
+  * Non-maintainer upload.
+  * Compile Java with backwards compatible bytecode.
+
+ -- Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net>  Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:12:47 +0200
+
 pylucene (3.5.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * New maintainer (closes: 670179)
diff -Nru pylucene-3.5.0/debian/rules pylucene-3.5.0/debian/rules
--- pylucene-3.5.0/debian/rules	2012-04-25 18:08:18.000000000 +0200
+++ pylucene-3.5.0/debian/rules	2012-06-28 10:14:26.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 #!/usr/bin/make -f
 
-export ANT := ant
+export ANT := ant -propertyfile $(CURDIR)/debian/ant.properties
 export JAVA_HOME := /usr/lib/jvm/default-java
 
 # number of cpp files to generate from jar. JCC will split

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 3.5.0-1.2

On 2012-06-28 10:24, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Source: pylucene
> Version: 3.5.0-1
> Severity: important
> Tags: patch
> User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
> Usertags: openjdk-7-transition
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> When building pylucene with Java7 as default java it FTBFS because jcc
> does not recognise Java7 bytecode.  Please see attached patch as an
> example of how to solve this.  You can test the patch with the
> binaries of java-common in experimental.
> 
> NB: pylucene still FTBFS when this patch is applied, but it gives a
> different error[1], which I believe is unrelated to Java7 and just a
> general FTBFS.  You will get a second bug if I can reproduce that in a
> sid chroot.
> 
> ~Niels
> 
> [1] ValueError: (<Class: class 
> org.apache.lucene.analysis.pt.PortugueseStemmer>, 'python class name already 
> in use, use --rename', u'PortugueseStemmer', <Class: class 
> org.tartarus.snowball.ext.PortugueseStemmer>)
> 

This was fixed in 3.5.0-1.2, but the changelog had a typo in to Closes line.

~Niels

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to