[bt-devel] Problem with Indexing in BT 2.8.1

[troypulk]

r2671 1.6.0 - 2.8.4 = works

r2671 1.6.0 - 2.9.1 = works

A side note:

using the above method the EMTV index size is 748 KiB

using mkfastmod the EMTV index size is 1138 KiB

Troy



--- On Thu, 1/19/12, Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [bt-devel] Problem with Indexing in BT 2.8.1
> To: "BibleTime development" <bt-devel at crosswire.org>
> Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 11:23 PM
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:43 AM,
> troypulk <troypulk at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Okay,
> >
> > This is what I have.
> >
> > Using r2400/r2671 osis2mod to compile my EMTV
> >
> > 1) r2671 - 1.6.2/SVN-2675 - 2.8.4 = does not work
> > 2) r2671 - 1.6.2/SVN-2675 - 2.9.1 = does not work
> > 3) r2671 - 1.6.0/PCLinuxOS-version - 2.8.4 = r2671 does
> not work with 1.6.0
> > 4) r2671 - 1.6.0/PCLinuxOS-version - 2.9.1 = r2671 does
> not work with 1.6.0
> 
> For these two just use the module that was created with
> r2671 and try
> reading it with 1.6.0 - 2.{8.4/9.1} and let us know how that
> goes.
> That should be the deciding factor that tells us what the
> culprit is.
> 
> --Greg
> 
> > 5) r2400 - 1.6.0/PCLinuxOS-version - 2.8.4 = works
> > 6) r2400 - 1.6.0/PCLinuxOS-version - 2.9.1 = works
> > 7) r2400 - 1.6.2/SVN-2675 - 2.8.4 = does not work
> > 8) r2400 - 1.6.2/SVN-2675 - 2.9.1 = does not work
> >
> > On #3 and 4 r2671 said it was looking for 1.6.2 since
> it was not installed it did not work.
> >
> > I do not have Xiphos installed, trying to install fails
> so I gave up on it.
> >
> > In using mkfastmod:
> >
> > 1) r2671 - 1.6.2 = works
> > 2) r2671 - 1.6.0 = PClinuxOS does not have mkfastmod
> > 3) r2400 - 1.6.2 = works
> > 4) r2400 - 1.6.0 = PClinuxOS does not have mkfastmod
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Troy
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 1/19/12, Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [bt-devel] Problem with Indexing in BT
> 2.8.1
> >> To: "BibleTime development" <bt-devel at crosswire.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 11:59 AM
> >> You should ALWAYS use the latest
> >> version of osis2mod from SVN and
> >> never the version that came out with a SWORD
> release, unless
> >> you're
> >> dealing with archaic SWORD libraries that you for
> some
> >> strange reason
> >> need to have compatibility with. That said...
> >>
> >> There seem to be too many moving parts here to
> determine
> >> which exactly
> >> is the culprit. Use these combinations and to
> test:
> >>
> >> 1) r2671 - 1.6.2 - 2.8.4
> >> 2) r2671 - 1.6.2 - 2.9.1
> >> 3) r2671 - 1.6.0 - 2.8.4
> >> 4) r2671 - 1.6.0 - 2.9.1
> >> 5) r2400 - 1.6.0 - 2.8.4
> >> 6) r2400 - 1.6.0 - 2.9.1
> >> 7) r2400 - 1.6.2 - 2.8.4
> >> 8) r2400 - 1.6.2 - 2.9.1
> >>
> >> Start at the top of the list and move down. I have
> ordered
> >> them the
> >> way I did so as to hopefully produce the smallest
> set of
> >> tests that
> >> you need to do in order to determine the culprit.
> BibleTime
> >> does not
> >> use SWORD's indexing but instead uses its own. Use
> the
> >> following
> >> criteria realizing that the exact inverse of
> working/not
> >> working is
> >> equivalent to what I'm saying here as well
> >>
> >> a) If the module works with 1 but not with 2 (or
> with 2 but
> >> not 1),
> >> then problem is in BibleTime's code and you can
> stop.
> >> b) If the module works with 1 and 2 but not with 3
> and 4
> >> (ditto the
> >> reverse), then the problem is in the SWORD library
> or the
> >> SWORD-BibleTime bridge and you can stop.
> >> b.5) If it works with 1-4 but not 5-8 (same with
> the
> >> reverse) then the
> >> problem is with osis2mod
> >> c) Only if neither of those setups gives the proper
> answer
> >> should you
> >> move on and test 5-8. In that case, send back the
> full
> >> results of your
> >> testing so we can tease out the proper conclusion.
> >>
> >> You might also try these four combos as well, while
> you're
> >> doing the testing
> >> 1) r2671 - 1.6.2
> >> 2) r2671 - 1.6.0
> >> 3) r2400 - 1.6.2
> >> 4) r2400 - 1.6.0
> >>
> >> For these tests either use Xiphos to create the
> index or use
> >> the
> >> command line tool "mkfastmod" to do the indexing.
> This would
> >> help us
> >> figure out if the problem is in SWORD or BibleTime
> (or even
> >> the module
> >> itself).
> >>
> >> --Greg
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:24 PM, troypulk <troypulk at yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > The latest info on this is that BT 2.8.4 with
> Sword
> >> 1.6.0 indexes just fine.
> >> >
> >> > But as I go up the ladder to the latest Sword
> SVN and
> >> BT 2.9.0 and up the indexing fails for my
> recompiled EMTV
> >> module.
> >> >
> >> > Even the updated EMTV from Sword does not
> Index, it was
> >> compiled with osis2mod 2671
> >> >
> >> > The osis2mod I'm using for BT 2.8.4 with Sword
> 1.6.0 is
> >> 2400
> >> >
> >> > The osis2mod I'm using for BT 2.9.1 with Sword
> SVN is
> >> 2671
> >> >
> >> > I've been working around this by using BT
> 2.8.4 with
> >> Sword 1.6.0 to index the EMTV then running BT 2.9.1
> to use
> >> it.
> >> >
> >> > I think that osis2mod is the issue?
> >> >
> >> > Install the updated EMTV and see if it works
> for you?
> >> >
> >> > Troy
> >> >
> >> > I'm using PCLinuxOS 2011 Xfce 64bit
> >> > BT - 2.9.1
> >> > sword - latest SVN
> >> > clucene - 0-0.9.21b-1
> >> > qt - 4.7.3
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Troy,
> >> >>
> >> >>I was able to index these files and get
> search
> >> results for them. I am
> >> >>guessing that this relates to a difference
> in the
> >> libraries that BT is
> >> >>using, perhaps clucene. All my libraries
> are ubuntu
> >> standard packages.
> >> >>
> >> >>Kubuntu 11.04
> >> >>Bibletime - latest git code
> >> >>clucene - 0.921b-2
> >> >>sword - 1.6.1+dfsg-2build1
> >> >>qt 0- 4.7.2
> >> >>
> >> >>bibletime-index.conf - same as yours
> >> >>_6d7.cfs 727054 bytes
> >> >>deletable 4 bytes
> >> >>segments 29 bytes
> >> >>
> >> >>I am not sure where to go next.
> >> >>
> >> >>Gary
> >> >
> >> >
> _______________________________________________
> >> > bt-devel mailing list
> >> > bt-devel at crosswire.org
> >> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> bt-devel mailing list
> >> bt-devel at crosswire.org
> >> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bt-devel mailing list
> > bt-devel at crosswire.org
> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bt-devel mailing list
> bt-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel
>