It's very doubtful they would, they have little incentive to. I'm happy providing help and some work on building with openwrap. One of the things that's different from NuGet is that we already take in charge rebuilding the same projects with different target platforms / profiles, including generating the correct code compilation symbols automatically, so you don't have to have massive build scripts that achieve what a simple line in your descriptor could.
That means a project that uses openwrap itself will have all those features out of the box. Producing from your existing build is also possible, but will require calling a build: with the actual build script you want to run, and a second build instruction with which assembly to put where so we can package this stuff. The alternative is to just build for NuGet, but that means you can't leverage the deployment of commands on the system repository, you can't use post-install / update hooks on either project or system, and you can't use any feature that nuget doesn't support. It also means that any powershell script you may write as part of your package install will not work with OpenWrap as we don't rely on VS to do the heavy lifting. So it depends on what you're trying to achieve and which features you want to use. The more things get into either systems, the more different they're going to tend to be. On Apr 28, 2:05 am, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm.. tough one. At least OW supportsNuget repositories. Not sure > about the other way round.. > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:59 PM, John Simons <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Does this mean we need to decide to use either nuget or ow? > > Is there a good comparison of both? > > > ________________________________ > > From: Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, 28 April 2011 9:24 AM > > Subject: Re: Our build scripts, nuget, openwrap and related stuff > > > Oh, hi Cristian :) > > > Go for it mate. > > > Krzysztof > > > On 28/04/2011 9:23 AM, Cristian Prieto wrote: > > > I raise my hand... > > Cristian Prieto > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I like the idea. Who's stepping in to make it real, though? > > > On 2011-04-27, at 5:32 AM, Rafael Teixeira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Just to cross-share some experience from Mono packaging for Debian/Ubuntu > > into Castle. Mirco Bauer just blogged on the reasoning for "The Big > > Split" http://www.meebey.net/posts/the_big_split_mono_2.10_debian_packaging/ . > > Summarizing it, Mono will be packaged from now on, on the basis of "ONE > > managed library per package" so that independently from the set of managed > > apps that you install no "surplus" dlls and related dependency trees > > (managed and native) are installed because they were packaged together with > > something that was needed, obviously there are meta-packages like > > mono-complete which install all the packages and the packagers do build > > everything from an specific snapshot of the whole source tree for Mono and > > each managed app. > > To the practical point, with NuGet (or OpenWrap) we can package things very > > granularly, and have the dependencies sort things for the user (programmer), > > and we already do kind of it, but we need to use it ourselves, breaking the > > ties from referencing directly lots of projects in one solution and > > referencing released versions of our own packages (or test versions from a > > NuGet repo tied to Team City). > > With that we will lose the ability to make big refactorings across the whole > > stack, but that may be, in essence, a GOOD thing, so that we are more > > conscious on API/Semantics breakages. That leeds to what really will remain > > complex, dependency versioning, or how to set MaxVersion on dependencies > > (MinVersion is trivial). > > My suggestion: to adopt an even more strict policy on version numbers versus > > API/Semantics breakage: Change the Minor and/or Major version when > > API/Semantics change, so set MaxVersion to an arbitrary high release number > > on (build numbers should never matter) . Example: > > Castle.Windsor (3.0) depends on Castle.Core (3.0.0 to 3.0.1000). > > If you need to change a signature method on some Castle.Core > > interface/public class (even specifying optional parameters/default values, > > or changing parameter names, now qualify as such) them you bump to 3.1.0 and > > have to build new dependent versions of up-in-the-stack libraries . The > > remaining question is if some client library isn't affected by that API > > breakage (lots of test coverage needed to assert that), if we just compile a > > new version extending the version range on the dependency bumping just the > > release number, or we have to bump the minor, because of cascading > > dependencies breakage. Example > > Castle.Windsor (3.0) depends on Castle.Core (3.0.0 to 3.1.1000). > > -- or -- > > Castle.Windsor (3.1) depends on Castle.Core (3.1.0 to 3.1.1000). > > What NuGet lacks is some kind of smart-updates, it is all-or-nothing about > > updates, which keeps this decision messy... > > Anyway what I'm saying is: we have to use NuGet-dependency ourselves to make > > it work well for our users, too. > > Just my 2 inflated-cents, > > Rafael "Monoman" Teixeira > > --------------------------------------- > > "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new > > discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'" > > Isaac Asimov > > US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992) > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:56 PM, John Simons <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > The reason we run into this issues is because the project separation is > > really only separate VS solutions for each main project. > > > If we go the next step and completely unmarry the projects from each other, > > this means not looking at Castle as a package but instead looking at > > Windsor, AR, ... on their own, maybe then we do not run into this issue. > > But then what is Castle? > > > Maybe the solution is to have combined releases + doco? > > > Cheers, John > > > On 27/04/2011, at 9:27, Henry Conceição <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> It has some pro and cons. > > >> The isolation is good when you think that you're not tied to the other > >> projects, specially for releases. But when you try to put all the > >> pieces together, it sucks due dll version hell issues. > > >> Cheers, > >> Henry Conceição > > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:37 PM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Isn't this a good time to also make an assessment of the project > >>> separations? Specifically having all project separated in github. Does > >>> it make life harder/easier? > > >>> 2011/4/26 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]>: > >>>> That sounds good to me, > > >>>> We'd need to write the "release" scripts pretty much from scratch anyway > >>>> so > >>>> we might as well do it in RAKE since as you pointed out there's no need > >>>> to > >>>> have it run elsewhere than on the build server. > > >>>> krzysztof > > >>>> On 26/04/2011 10:49 PM, Roelof Blom wrote: > > >>>> IMHO MSBuild is not really suitable for creating nuget, packaging, > >>>> releasing > >>>> to SF etc. > >>>> As these tasks are only executed by the TeamCity server and/or > >>>> committers > >>>> rake with Albacore will make this a lot easier and workable. > >>>> There are of course ways to get MSBuild to do this (like creating a > >>>> nuget > >>>> package with NuGet.MSBuild) it's really throwing in more and more XML > >>>> for no > >>>> apparent benefit. > >>>> A combination of "front-end" MSBuild scripts like we have now and a > >>>> "back-end" rake script looks best to me. > >>>> This way there's no barrier to open and build our projects locally like > >>>> they can now, and the rest can just script and automate anything that > >>>> comes > >>>> to mind with a tool well suited for it. > >>>> -- Roelof. > > >>>> 2011/4/25 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> > > >>>>> I haven't looked beyond putting Nuget package for Windsor 2.5.3 out, > >>>>> something that was frequently requested. > > >>>>> I would *love* to have the release process automated (to a point where > >>>>> I > >>>>> git push to a new tag and our TeamCity recognizes that, and runs a > >>>>> release > >>>>> build that does everything, including release packaging, releasing to > >>>>> SF, > >>>>> nuget and OW, branching (if new branch is needed, that is it's not a > >>>>> point > >>>>> point release and few other things I forgot, like updating the website > >>>>> in > >>>>> all 3 places.)) > > >>>>> I *strongly* prefer giving MsBuild a fair shot before trying any other > >>>>> build solution, mostly because MsBuild is out of the box, it's .NET and > >>>>> many > >>>>> developers will flat refuse to install Ruby in order to build a .NET > >>>>> project. > > >>>>> I think the scripts we have are really well and cleanly written and > >>>>> while > >>>>> I'm nowhere near as proficient at working with them as Roelof is, I've > >>>>> been > >>>>> able to tweak them on several occasions, same as I'm sure everyone else > >>>>> on > >>>>> the team would be. > > >>>>> This however reminds me of another problem I've had, and we'll continue > >>>>> having, that is keeping consistency in build scripts among projects. > >>>>> I've mostly worked with Core and Windsor and all changes and tweaks > >>>>> introduced in one project had to be manually copied to the other one. > >>>>> As we > >>>>> have many more projects I'm sure trying to deploy changes to build > >>>>> process > >>>>> all across the board would be nothing short of a nightmare. > > >>>>> Can we please consider some options for automated sharing the build > >>>>> files > >>>>> among all of our projects so that we only change things once and that > >>>>> change > >>>>> gets propagated to every project? > > >>>>> I think it might also be beneficial to have a wiki page that > >>>>> a) documents how our build works and how it should be used > >>>>> b) documents customizations we've made to .csproj files so that it's > >>>>> easy > >>>>> to add a new project and get it to work with the build > > >>>>> Krzysztof > > >>>>> On 25/04/2011 7:49 PM, John Simons wrote: > > >>>>> I would much rather use rake then msbulid. > >>>>> No offence to Roelof but currently I think the only person that can > >>>>> maintain those scripts is him and I don't believe this is a good > >>>>> situation. > >>>>> I think Krzysztof is trying to hook up nuget and ow to our build + > >>>>> automate > >>>>> most of it, how is that going? Is msbuild working for this? > >>>>> Cheers, John > >>>>> On 25/04/2011, at 5:36, Henry Conceição <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> About the build: I don't like the ideia of obligating everyone to have > >>>>> ruby + rake in order to build the tx stuff. Probably we will restore > >>>>> the msbuild and get rid of the rake scripts when we merge the changes > >>>>> on the master repo. > > >>>>> On the 3.5 matter: At least for me, we can drop de support for it. > > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Henry Conceição > > >>>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Henrik Feldt <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> Yup, a merge it is. They are merged in my repository now. > > >>>>> The rest in this letter is about the upcoming alpha. > > >>>>> Docs: > > >>>>> I have added docs to the wiki as well on my repo. > > >>>>> Building: > > >>>>> Both projects have been rewritten, based on the previous > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
