Andi Vajda wrote:
> That's great !
> I'm not sure what the policy is for posting links to external binaries
> on the site but if you send these links to the list, at least people
> would be able to find them.
How about you register "pylucene" on PyPI and give me upload permission?
You'd be the
Sorry for being late for the feedbak,
Here is what i get:
SystemError: NULL result without error in PyObject_Call.
The same error when removing the init statement using the latest release of
pylucene.
Thanks.
Adil :)
De : Andi Vajda
À : pylucene-dev@luc
Hi,
I'm using PyLucene 2.3 + JCC 1.9 but I'm experiencing JVM crashes from time to
time. I hoped that these might be resolved by switching to a newer version of JCC.
Is the latest JCC supposed to be compatible with PyLucene 2.3?
fs
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Felix Schwarz wrote:
I'm using PyLucene 2.3 + JCC 1.9 but I'm experiencing JVM crashes from time
to time. I hoped that these might be resolved by switching to a newer version
of JCC.
Is the latest JCC supposed to be compatible with PyLucene 2.3?
JCC is meant to be able
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Christian Heimes wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
That's great !
I'm not sure what the policy is for posting links to external binaries
on the site but if you send these links to the list, at least people
would be able to find them.
How about you register "pylucene" on PyPI and
Andi Vajda wrote:
> Hmm, that's an idea...
>
> It is my understanding that for a package to 'work' in PyPI it needs to have
> some setup.py support, right ? JCC, for example, is already on PyPI since
> it's entirely built with setup.py.
>
> PyLucene, on the other hand, does not have a setup.py
Christian Heimes wrote:
> I know of no rule that forbids Makefile based installation routines.
I include a Makefile with the ssl module, for instance.
And easy_install hooks aren't a requirement; in fact, I consider a
connection to setuptools a red flag (folks following the distutils
mailing li
Christian Heimes wrote:
> It makes no sense to offer binaries of an open source Python extension
> except for Windows. Any other important operating system (Linux, Mac,
> *BSD) has the necessary tools already on board or they can be easily
> installed.
Well, building pylucene is pretty complicat
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Christian Heimes wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
Hmm, that's an idea...
It is my understanding that for a package to 'work' in PyPI it needs to have
some setup.py support, right ? JCC, for example, is already on PyPI since
it's entirely built with setup.py.
PyLucene, on the oth
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Bill Janssen wrote:
Christian Heimes wrote:
It makes no sense to offer binaries of an open source Python extension
except for Windows. Any other important operating system (Linux, Mac,
*BSD) has the necessary tools already on board or they can be easily
installed.
Well
Andi Vajda wrote:
> The same approach could be used for figuring out the Java stuff. Have
> a small class running in Java tell us.
You would think, wouldn't you? But then you'll often end up with gcj.
The JDK/JRE distinction is another killer.
> On Linux, every distro has its own, incompatible
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Bill Janssen wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
The same approach could be used for figuring out the Java stuff. Have
a small class running in Java tell us.
You would think, wouldn't you? But then you'll often end up with gcj.
And it would tell you by looking at System.getPro
Andi Vajda wrote:
> Bill, could you please expand a bit on that red flag you just alluded
> to for those of us who don't follow the distutils list.
The big problem with setuptools is that it's a widely ambitious package
with featuritis and I-know-better-itis, maintained from a private
codebase b
Andi Vajda wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Bill Janssen wrote:
>
> > Andi Vajda wrote:
> >
> >> The same approach could be used for figuring out the Java stuff. Have
> >> a small class running in Java tell us.
> >
> > You would think, wouldn't you? But then you'll often end up with gcj.
>
> And
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Bill Janssen wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Bill Janssen wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
The same approach could be used for figuring out the Java stuff. Have
a small class running in Java tell us.
You would think, wouldn't you? But then you'll often end
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Bill Janssen wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
Bill, could you please expand a bit on that red flag you just alluded
to for those of us who don't follow the distutils list.
The big problem with setuptools is that it's a widely ambitious package
with featuritis and I-know-better
16 matches
Mail list logo
