> 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. Hm. 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 rubygems.org 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 <http://cocoaobjects.com/>? 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 ;) cheers, Torsten
