[Xapian-discuss] bindings - python module

[Olly Betts]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 09:12:51AM +0100, James Aylett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 06:49:45PM +0100, Olly Betts wrote:
> 
> > James: We don't want _xapian.a installing there, do we?  I think that's
> > just a hangover from when I changed it to use libtool to build the
> > shared libraries for the bindings...
> 
> Don't need _xapian.la either - xapian.py is the Python file that
> import xapian will use; it itself imports _xapian as a shared object,
> so you need _xapian.so; the others won't be used.

There's an install hook which is meant to remove _xapian.la, but it
appears it's not working.  I'll investigate.

> Incidentally, it might be nice to have an install hook to byte compile
> xapian.py, merely because if you're installing as root but
> subsequently running as another user it won't be able to save the .pyc
> as the user.

OK - do you know the command to do that to save me digging for it?  And
can I byte compile in the build directory, then install the .pyc as well
as the .py?

> Are you going to move up to more recent autotools before 0.8.2 or
> after? Just wondering if I need to bother upgrading yet :-)

I think moving before makes sense.  The tinderbox allow me to check that
there aren't portability problems.  The question is what versions to
move to.  Demanding recent versions is much less of a problem now we
have CVS snapshots - only people actively developing the library will
need to install tools, and the autotools are very easy to install
private copies of (just make sure you install them all at the same
prefix).  That said, we want to avoid the bleeding edge.  Here's the
results of scanning the NEWS files (if you've practical experience
with more recent versions, please do comment):

autoconf:

Currently I'm bootstrapping with 2.54 (the minimum version HACKING
suggests and which configure.ac insists on).

2.55 should fix the annoying stream of warnings from configure of the
form:

mv: [FILE]: set owner/group (was: [USERNO]/[GROUPNO]): Operation not permitted

2.56 was released the day after to fix a packaging problem, and 2.57
less than 3 weeks later with further bug fixes (2002-12-03).

2.58 has a lot of changes, but nothing jumps out as vital.  There was
a problem with it, and 2.59 was released the same day!  That was
2003-11-04.  2.59 is the latest release (ignoring alphas and betas).
Automake 1.8.5 requires at least 2.59.

So in conclusion, the sensible options are really 2.57 or 2.59.

automake:

Currently I'm bootstrapping with 1.6.3 (the minimum version HACKING
suggests and which Makefile.am insists on).

In reverse order: 1.9 has been out for just over a month, which I think
may be a bit new especially as automake seems prone to problems in early
releases on a new branch.

1.8.5 came out back in May this year.  There's a lot of fixes between
1.6.3 and 1.8.5, as well as lots of changes - nothing I saw sounded
vital, but I think I'll at least try 1.8.5 as James Cronin reported
problems trying to bootstrap with it and it'd be good to be "1.8.5
ready".

libtool:

Currently HACKING suggests at least 1.5 - I don't think anything in the
build system enforces that though.

1.5.8 seems the release to go for - it's only a month old, but the
changes since 1.5 are almost entirely bug fixes and improved
portability.

Cheers,
    Olly