lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] building withOUT perl
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:20:10 GMT
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Torsten Curdt wrote:
> >> Hm. So there would be a dedicated release dist per language binding.
> >
> > Not necessarily.
> >
> > There has to be a dedicated "downstream" release for each *packaging system*
> > we might target -- such as CPAN, or PyPI -- because each insists
> > on certain conventions regarding directory layout and metadata.
> >
> > I don't see why we would need a dedicated release dist for any language
> > without an associated packaging system, though.  You can just build from the
> > canonical Apache release artifacts, which is equivalent to building from a
> > checkout of svn trunk.  That option is of course available for any supported
> > binding language, regardless of the presence or absence of supplementary
> > downstream dists.
> I was more thinking along the lines of... what is a release of lucy then?

The canonical Apache release of Lucy is just a tgz'd svn export.

Non-official downstream packages are then built off of the canonical release
artifacts.  For instance, the CPAN tarball is built using the following

    tar -zxf apache-lucy-incubating-0.2.0.tar.gz
    cd apache-lucy-incubating-0.2.0
    cd perl
    perl Build.PL
    ./Build dist

Once we have Ruby bindings, I expect that the incantation to build the gemfile
will look nearly the same.

    tar -zxf apache-lucy-incubating-0.2.0.tar.gz
    cd apache-lucy-incubating-0.2.0
    cd ruby
    rake dist

Though we write the build actions to assemble these downstream dists, from the
standpoint of Apache the artifacts they produce remain unofficial -- i.e. the
downstream dists are not endorsed by a vote of the Lucy PPMC which is then
certified by a vote of the Incubator PMC.

> Does it contain the obj-c code, the ruby gem, python module, ... whatever?

The .gem gemfile format used by is similar to Debian's .deb
archive format.

Both are Unix tar archives with two components: 

    * Control information.
    * Data.

The canonical Apache release tarball for Lucy will not contain a gemfile --
however, it will contain all the source code necessary to build the gemfile

> Or how are user obtaining and using it?

I expect that the majority of our Perl users will always get the release via
the CPAN packaging system.  A minority may obtain it from various OS
packagers, such as Debian, RedHat, FreeBSD ports, etc.

I don't know how Objective C users would get the code, as I'm not familiar
with the culture.  Yet. :)  Perhaps <>?  And then
would the canonical ASF release suffice for that channel, or would it be
helpful to have a dedicated downstream dist?  I don't know.  Perhaps you will
be able to help us.  :)


Marvin Humphrey

View raw message