lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiare...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:17:17 GMT
All 4 packages are have been published:
http://nuget.org/List/Search?searchTerm=author%3A%20Lucene.Net%20Community

here a blog post with the announcement and thanking the guys that gave us
their package ids
http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2011/12/02/Lucene-net-2-9-4-is-out-now-with-NuGet.aspx

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Yes, there is one:
> http://nuget.org/List/Packages/SharpZipLib
> and just one version available (0.86), so not much of choice :)
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Michael Herndon <
> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
>
>> It *should be possible to add icsharpcode.sharpziplib.dll as a dependency
>> as nuget package already exists for it. I think it just needs to specify
>> the version.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Simone Chiaretta <
>> simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, will add the SharpZipLib ... cool thing of Nuget is that we don't
>> have
>> > to add it to our dist.. just add a dependency to the original pkg, so
>> with
>> > its own licenses and requirements.
>> >
>> > Changes: fixed some texts in the nuspecs, and added the nuspecs for the
>> old
>> > pgks.
>> > I'll create a JIRA task and attach the changes over there.
>> >
>> > I'll let you know as soon as I publish the pkgs
>> >
>> > Simo
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Please test them and let me know if you find any problem:
>> > > > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5037284/Lucene.net-nuget/Lucene.2.9.4.1.zip
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Looks good
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I've seen ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib is always included in the bin
>> folder
>> > > > after compiling, but if I'm not wrong it's only needed if compressed
>> > > > indexes are needed: shall I add it as dependency or not?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I would say include it, that way everything works "out of the box".
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I did a few changes: do I create a diff file and send it to someone?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > What do you mean changes? I guess you could send them to me, or attach
>> > > them to a JIRA
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks Simone for tackling this
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ~Prescott
>> > >
>> > > ----------------------------------------
>> > > > Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 00:24:28 +0100
>> > > > From: simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
>> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
>> > > >
>> > > > So, I created the packages using the binary release available on the
>> > > > official site, but using the XML doc I got for building it on my
>> > machine.
>> > > >
>> > > > Please test them and let me know if you find any problem:
>> > > > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5037284/Lucene.net-nuget/Lucene.2.9.4.1.zip
>> > > >
>> > > > To test them unzip to file somewhere in your disk, and specify the
>> > folder
>> > > > as path for Nuget in the package management settings window.
>> > > >
>> > > > If all is good I'll push them online tomorrow
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > I noticed not all contrib projects have been released as binary, so
>> I'm
>> > > > including in the contrib pkg only the ones that are part of the
>> binary
>> > > > release on the apache site.
>> > > >
>> > > > I didn't create the sample package with the demo apps because it's
>> just
>> > > the
>> > > > compiled apps, and not of a create use for those who want to study
>> it.
>> > > I'll
>> > > > look into making a proper demo pkg in the next weeks.
>> > > >
>> > > > I've seen ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib is always included in the bin
>> folder
>> > > > after compiling, but if I'm not wrong it's only needed if compressed
>> > > > indexes are needed: shall I add it as dependency or not?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Finally I needed a logo for the package:
>> > > > I used that one
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/branding/logo/lucene-net-icon-128x128.png
>> > > > But if would be great if it was also somewhere in the public site.
>> > > > For this version I think it's ok to leave it there, but maybe for
a
>> > next
>> > > > release it would be good to publish it in the website.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I did a few changes: do I create a diff file and send it to someone?
>> > > >
>> > > > Simone
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
>> > > > simone.chiaretta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > maybe I'm missing something, but looks like the snk file for
>> strongly
>> > > > > signing is in the public repo on svn.apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Simone
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
>> > > > > simone.chiaretta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Good... no need to have another key...
>> > > > >> Simo
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> ---
>> > > > >> Simone Chiaretta
>> > > > >> @simonech
>> > > > >> Sent from a tablet
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On 01/dic/2011, at 21:04, Michael Herndon <
>> > > mherndon@wickedsoftware.net>
>> > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > Keep in mind tho that having the token checked in somewhere
in
>> the
>> > > > >> source
>> > > > >> > repository is not a good idea b/c someone could use
it and
>> publish
>> > > > >> malware
>> > > > >> > or trojans under your identity. So unless the token
is stored
>> > > outside
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > source repository, it's not a good idea to have it in
the CI.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > - stored in an ASF private repo.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > the a new key probably needs to be generated and stored
in the
>> > > private
>> > > > >> ASF
>> > > > >> > repo as well.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > The CI build is at builds.apache.org, however its not
>> complete.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
>> > > > >> simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
>> > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >> Mine below
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon
<
>> > > > >> >> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
>> > > > >> >>> wrote:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta
<
>> > > > >> >>> simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
>> > > > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>>> You mean a different impersonal Nuget account?
>> > > > >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>> yes. the goal of the impersonal account was
to allow
>> committers
>> > to
>> > > > >> push
>> > > > >> >>> nuget packages in an automated way without the
need of having
>> > > their
>> > > > >> own
>> > > > >> >>> account. there was some preliminary work of
building nuget
>> > > packages
>> > > > >> using
>> > > > >> >>> the build scripts.
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Sorry, I haven't followed a lot lately: at the end,
did we
>> end up
>> > > using
>> > > > >> >> teamcity on codebetter or another build system?
I remember
>> there
>> > > were
>> > > > >> >> discussion on that but don't remember how they ended.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>> there has been talk on various nuget channels
about allowing
>> > > nuget to
>> > > > >> >> have
>> > > > >> >>> --pre tag or having a separate build channel.
If you're not
>> > > familiar
>> > > > >> with
>> > > > >> >>> gems/bundler, its basically a way to push packages
that are
>> not
>> > > > >> official
>> > > > >> >>> releases. (nightly, ctp, beta, etc). So in theory
the CI
>> could
>> > > build
>> > > > >> >>> packages nightly if the build does not fail
into a channels.
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>> its also helps from an overall branding perspective.
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> The author that appears on the nuget gallery page
can be
>> > different
>> > > > >> from the
>> > > > >> >> owner that puts the package online.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>>> From what I've seen also used in MS pkgs
devs have their in
>> > > accounts
>> > > > >> >> but
>> > > > >> >>>> pkgs have multiple owners.
>> > > > >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>> If its possible to do so link your account as
an owner &
>> > > prescott's
>> > > > >> >> account
>> > > > >> >>> with the impersonal one.
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Keep in mind tho that having the token checked in
somewhere in
>> > the
>> > > > >> source
>> > > > >> >> repository is not a good idea b/c someone could
use it and
>> > publish
>> > > > >> malware
>> > > > >> >> or trojans under your identity. So unless the token
is stored
>> > > outside
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> >> source repository, it's not a good idea to have
it in the CI.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> One last thing: I notice that the official lib is
strongly
>> > named...
>> > > > >> again,
>> > > > >> >> not a good idea to have the key checked in the source
>> control. I
>> > > guess
>> > > > >> now
>> > > > >> >> someone owns the key for the strong naming and does
the
>> signing
>> > > offline
>> > > > >> >> from the CI. Is that correct?
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>>> But if you want we can also go with the
Lucene.net team
>> > account.
>> > > > >> >>>> Simo
>> > > > >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> --
>> > > > >> >> Simone Chiaretta
>> > > > >> >> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>> > > > >> >> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>> > > > >> >> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>> > > > >> >> twitter: @simonech
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from
>> > > magic
>> > > > >> >> "Life is short, play hard"
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Simone Chiaretta
>> > > > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>> > > > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>> > > > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>> > > > > twitter: @simonech
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
>> magic
>> > > > > "Life is short, play hard"
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Simone Chiaretta
>> > > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>> > > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>> > > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>> > > > twitter: @simonech
>> > > >
>> > > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>> > > > "Life is short, play hard"
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Simone Chiaretta
>> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>> > twitter: @simonech
>> >
>> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>> > "Life is short, play hard"
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"
>



-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message