1 Jul 2004 11:34
Re: Xapian 0.8.1 released
Richard Boulton <richard <at> tartarus.org>
2004-07-01 09:34:29 GMT
2004-07-01 09:34:29 GMT
Olly Betts wrote: > I've uploaded Xapian 0.8.1: Debian packages are now available from the Xapian website: If you're running Debian stable add the following to your sources.list: deb http://www.xapian.org/debian stable main deb-src http://www.xapian.org/debian stable main If you're running Debian unstable or testing, add the following: deb http://www.xapian.org/debian unstable main deb-src http://www.xapian.org/debian unstable main Note that these packages are still incomplete: while they should work well enough for most purposes, they fail lintian tests due to manpages for some of the binaries being missing. In addition, only the python bindings are packaged so far, and the omega package doesn't perform any automatic configuration (ideally, it would be possible to configure it at install time to index, for example, the system documentation). There are also some other lintian failure with the stable packages, which don't look serious but need addressing. Note also that packages are only built for i386. If you're on another architecture, you can build your own by adding the "deb-src" line above, then: # su - # apt-get update(Continue reading)
> In turn,
> xapian can earn lots of users and those ones become
> familiar with xapian and so they use in other areas,
> they tell others about xapian and so on.
??? Is this really how it works? People use Xapian because
the need powerfull IR technology. Word of mouth is a bad
advisor in such areas. I doubt that mifluz is used more
often because of its use in htdig -- actually, i'm still
>
> All the standard robots.txt implementations I've seen implement the
> spec. Sadly almost nobody who writes robots.txt files seems to read
> the spec...
ISTR something by Mark Pilgrim saying the Python one didn't behave
itself properly; he wrote his own for the Ultra Liberal Feed
Parser. I note that he's fixing two bugs, one fixed in Python 2.3a2;
there's another which appears to still be open in Python itself which
he patches (bug 690214 - although this doesn't appear to be a valid bug).
It doesn't help that the robots.txt spec is fairly poorly-written, and
exists only as an expired I-D. It also lacks some useful features that
make it tortuous or impossible to build certain types of robot control
policies
RSS Feed