lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:29:54 GMT
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"
>

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