[needs-packaging] Lucene++

[Jim Hodapp]

Description:
Lucene++ is an up to date C++ port of the popular Java Lucene library, a high-performance, full-featured text search engine.

URL: https://github.com/luceneplusplus/LucenePlusPlus
License: LGPLv3 + Apache 2.0 (multilicense)

I have prepared Ubuntu packaging, based on existing Debian packaging provided by Openismus.

Packaging branch: lp:lucene++/ubuntu
Test packages: lucene++ - 3.0.4-0ubuntu1~test1 in ppa:sil2100/testing

[Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot (crichton)]

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. It seems that your bug report is not filed about a specific source package though, rather it is just filed against Ubuntu in general. It is important that bug reports be filed about source packages so that people interested in the package can find the bugs about it. You can find some hints about determining what package your bug might be about at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/FindRightPackage. You might also ask for help in the #ubuntu-bugs irc channel on Freenode.

To change the source package that this bug is filed about visit https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1036812/+editstatus and add the package name in the text box next to the word Package.

[This is an automated message. I apologize if it reached you inappropriately; please just reply to this message indicating so.]

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

lucene was in our repository for two release: hardy and lucid.
now i think there is an updated fork.

the original source is on github: https://github.com/luceneplusplus/LucenePlusPlus
license: https://github.com/luceneplusplus/LucenePlusPlus/blob/master/COPYING

in https://gitorious.org/openismus-packaging/luceneplusplus there is a debian directory for the packaging.

on debian there aren't this package also in wnpp.

so i mark this bug as need-packaging. a bot in the next week will mark this bug as triaged/wishlist.

[Jim Hodapp (jhodapp)]

Mattia, I'm curious why you are marking this as needs-packaging? Are you meaning to create a new package for it different from the link I provided?

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

Because the activity of packaging go through a MOTU, who know the latest quality standard for a debian package. The link you provided can be useful for speeding up the packaging, but we have to use the original code, also because in the meantime a MOTU find out this page, the author can release a new version of Lucene++, but your link can be no longer updated.

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

*** This is an automated message ***

This bug is tagged needs-packaging which identifies it as a request for a new package in Ubuntu. As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Specs/NeedsPackagingBugs, all needs-packaging bug reports have Wishlist importance. Subsequently, I'm setting this bug's status to Wishlist.

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

Can somebody put up a package up somewhere which merges upstream code and packaging?

[Jim Hodapp (jhodapp)]

Daniel, what exactly do you mean by the packaging part?

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

The files in the ./debian/ directory.

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

For now I'll unsubscribe the 'ubuntu-sponsors' team until somebody proposed a source package which can be reviewed.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for Ubuntu because there has been no activity for 60 days.]

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

I'm setting again the status to "neiw", until someone takes care of this package.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

[Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100)]

I have prepared the LP project page and bzr branch for the ubuntu packaging. I have also pushed the source package to my testing PPA for saucy. Everything is mentioned now in the main description.

Thank you!