From lucene-dev-return-553-qmlist-jakarta-archive-lucene-dev=jakarta.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org Thu Jan 24 21:04:07 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 74069 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2002 21:04:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Jan 2002 21:04:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 16869 invoked by uid 97); 24 Jan 2002 21:04:09 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 16853 invoked by uid 97); 24 Jan 2002 21:04:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Developers List" Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 16842 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2002 21:04:09 -0000 Message-ID: <4BC270C6AB8AD411AD0B00B0D0493DF0EE7E8C@mail.grandcentral.com> From: Doug Cutting To: 'Lucene Developers List' Subject: RE: Getting Started (first draft comments) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:00:37 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Currently information on how to build Lucene is in the BUILD.txt file that is in CVS and distributed with the source distribution, but not the binary distribution. Is this document inaccurate or inadequate? Should we improve it or replace it? In any case, Lucene build instructions and the build.xml should probably not be shipped with a binary distribution. If the example applications end up using ant in ways that end users may need (e.g., building the war file) then perhaps they should have their own build.xml that is packaged with the binary distribution. Does that sound reasonable? Doug -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: