lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2011 07:40:51 GMT

>
> 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" 		 	   		  
Mime
View raw message