On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 08:49:06AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > I'm willing to sponsor this, but I have some questions/showstoppers:
Thanks a lot!
>
> 1) licenses: some licenses are BSD, and there are some missing copyrights.
> please add them (grep -Ri license and grep -Ri copyright might give you a
> start,
> and licensecheck might help too)
I'll check.
> 2) why can't you use lucene from Debian? sounds like an embedded copy, even if
> I stopped looking at the name, not the content
> we have liblucene*-java
> 5)
> +Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9), dh-python, ant, curl, jcc, default-jdk,
> python-setuptools (>= 0.6b3), python-all-dev (>= 2.6.6-3),
> + antlr3, liblucene4.10-java, libasm4-java
Now (new version) actually uses liblucene4.10-java from Debian both as
Build-Depends and runtime dependency.
And that's actually why I've added more Build-Depends.
lucene-java-4.10.1 is just there because it's in upstream tarball.
I was trying to avoid repackaging of upstream tarball (until I found
minified JS files).
It should be possible to completely exclude whole 'lucene-java-4.10.1'
directory (and probably embedded copy of jcc source) from repacked
orig.tar.gz.
Should I do this?
> 3) snowball, can you please try to use the system snowball?
> note: I tried with my lucene++ package, and I failed because of patches
As far as I understand, pylucene don't use it (at least directly). Since
it's inside lucene-java-4.10.1 that is completely not used.
> +
> 4)
> pylucene-4.10.1+dfsg/debian/source/include-binaries ^^ please remove
ok
> please document why you have added a lot of new build-dependencies
>
I've mentioned about liblucene4.10-java in changelog:
* Drop embedded copy of lucene-java-4.10 in binary package (add Depends:
liblucene4.10-java)
Is it enough? Will check other dependencies
--
WBR, Dmitry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
