lucene-pylucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacob Floyd <>
Subject Re: Replacing the Makefile
Date Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:36:46 GMT
Well, to tell the truth the limit of my exposure to is with
pylucene and related chandler dependencies. Though I don't know
exactly when I'd be able to do something like that, any suggestions
(besides googleing it, of course) of where to learn about making the, or even about writing python? Are there any known cases
where someone has already made the java jars from a or
equivalent python script? As it is now, the python folks at gentoo
refused to do much with the ebuild because of compiling the one
extensions.jar, so all the help I got was from the java people - thus
the solution they know and like so well: ant. I'm inpartial either way
- I just don't like the idea of maintaining a completely different
build system for gentoo than the "standard" pylucene system. Whatever
I do, I'd like to see it integrated, so that gentoo and all of the
other platforms can use it. One ring, ahem build ahem, to rule them


> Wow, I was not aware that one could use 'ant' to build Python things.
> Even though PyLucene/JCC is bridging both the Java and Python worlds, its
> intended audience is Python developers. I don't expect Python developers to
> use 'ant' in their everyday development tasks.
> That being said, if you submit a fully functional, not gentoo-specific,
> build.xml ant script for PyLucene, that would be an improvement over the GNU
> Makefile for Windows users since running it relies on Cygwin. I wouldn't get
> rid of Makefile just then but time and usage would tell us where to focus
> thus duplicated maintenance efforts.
> It would be better, though, and more pythonic, to build a
> setuptools file for PyLucene instead. That would make it possible to get rid
> of Makefile just as well and be more fitting with the Python ways.
> Andi..

View raw message