Packaging issue

[lordnynex]

Small issue,

The release file downloaded from http://whitedb.org/whitedb-0.7.3.tar.gz is not actually gzipped. Not an issue at all, but the .gz suffix makes you think it is.

BTW, this project seems to be dormant for the last year or so. Please don't give up on it!! It's such a great piece of software.

[priitj]

Odd. I still see it as a gzipped file. The md5 checksum of the dowloaded file should be fb9d79ad19d65f3f50fe3f82316a9721, maybe the browser gunzipped it already?

Another thing I noticed is that recent GNU tar doesn't seem to complain even if you omit the '-z' option when feeding it a gzip compressed file.

[lordnynex]

That is really weird. I think my browser did decompress it. Sorry for the bogus bug.

From yesterday with the browser:

$ file whitedb-0.7.3.tar.gz 
whitedb-0.7.3.tar.gz: tar archive
$ md5sum whitedb-0.7.3.tar.gz 
0c74213c161831002f3332d27d7e132d  whitedb-0.7.3.tar.gz

From today with curl

$ file whitedb-0.7.3.tar.gz 
whitedb-0.7.3.tar.gz: gzip compressed data, from Unix, last modified: Tue Nov  4 11:24:57 2014, max compression
$ md5sum whitedb-0.7.3.tar.gz 
fb9d79ad19d65f3f50fe3f82316a9721  whitedb-0.7.3.tar.gz

[lordnynex]

@priitj I don't want to pollute your issue tracker with questions so I hope you don't mind me asking this here.

Are there any serious incompatibilities between 0.7.3 and 0.7.2? The reason I ask is whitedb has older upstream deb packages which is great for the one off use case I'm working on now, but the python bindings are a fair bit less prortable. Is there anything stopping me from writing a setup.py and bundling this as a separate python package? I believe distutils would call pkg config to find the whitedb libs for linking.

Is the project still alive? If so, I think it would be a great addition to decouple the python bindings and publish the module to the python index.

Is there any documentation on the reasoner anywhere? I googled a bit but could seem to find what it is.

[priitj]

There are two separate issues with compatibility between releases. I think that the question of the API being compatible between releases could be managed for a separate Python bindings package by using only the stable subset of the API. This is sort of the case now: from a quick look, between 0.7.2 and 0.7.3 no changes were required in the actual Python module.

The other issue is the compatibility of memory images, but that is something that would come up anyway. In general, persistent data needs to be migrated if the library is upgraded.

It would be dishonest for me to say that the project is alive. However, I have not given up on it and hope to continue working on it. Of course, it is also great to hear back from people, this certainly motivates me more to find the time and resources to continue the development.

I totally agree about decoupling the python bindings and in general keeping the database library and bindings separate. This is on the TODO list.

I'll get back to you about the reasoner. Are you looking for general information or usage instructions?