lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Torsten Curdt <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] building withOUT perl
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:16:53 GMT
> The canonical Apache release of Lucy is just a tgz'd svn export.

So a source only release.

> Non-official downstream packages are then built off of the canonical release
> artifacts.


Having a volunteer publish the gem does not sound like a great idea -
at least long term. If there are committers around that do the work on
a release - great. But it would be so much better if this was an
automated process.

>> Does it contain the obj-c code, the ruby gem, python module, ... whatever?
> The .gem gemfile format used by is similar to Debian's .deb
> archive format.

I know :)

...but the ruby folks need a gem, objective-c people need a framework
and/or a static library etc. And that's what they will expect. If it's
really just a source only dist at *least* the build would have to be
super super easy.

>> Or how are user obtaining and using it?
> I expect that the majority of our Perl users will always get the release via
> the CPAN packaging system.

So why would it be published to CPAN but not to e.g. rubygems?

> I don't know how Objective C users would get the code, as I'm not familiar
> with the culture.  Yet. :)


I guess they would expect a pre-built framework to download.

> Perhaps <>?

Not really.

>  And then
> would the canonical ASF release suffice for that channel, or would it be
> helpful to have a dedicated downstream dist?  I don't know.  Perhaps you will be able
to help us.  :)

Pretty sure I can ;)


View raw message