Mailing-List: contact lucy-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lucy-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4CFEF046.5050802@peknet.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:41:10 -0600
From: Peter Karman <peter@peknet.com>
Reply-To: peter@peknet.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lucy-dev@incubator.apache.org
References: <20101207004351.GA12827@rectangular.com>
 <4CFDA395.7050702@peknet.com> <20101207213043.GA15550@rectangular.com>
 <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012071752010.21158@radix.cryptio.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012071752010.21158@radix.cryptio.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [lucy-dev] Build from top dir

Chris Hostetter wrote on 12/7/10 8:29 PM:

> 1) Although the lucene release haven't really set a good example of this, 
> the mantra Juka has always evangalized that i've come to appreciate is 
> that the "source" release should essentially be "svn export | tar | gzip"
> 

+1

> 2) The source release is all that matters, it's the only thing that *must* 
> be voted on.
> 

in that light, I think this thread is moot.

Am I wrong?


> 
> i wouldn't jump through any hoops trying to organize the code in some 
> convoluted way just for the sake of trying to simplify the release voting 
> -- if you want to to keep the vote simple, make the source release 
> artificats clean, clear, well documented and easy to "build"
> 
> If it makes sense for the Lucy build to have 200 different binary 
> artifacts targeted at diff languages, so be it - the important thing is 
> that every one of those binary packages needs to be reproducable by anyone 
> with the source release, the build documentation, and a copy of the 
> neccessary dependencies.
> 

+1

-- 
Peter Karman  .  http://peknet.com/  .  peter@peknet.com