SysCache2 and MemCache published too... the latter had a (likely
unofficial) NuGet package.
Enyim shouldn't be an issue; Prevalence, SharedCache and Velocity will
probably require ad-hoc packages.
Diego
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:16, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote:
> That package looks perfect to me (and test-installed just fine too!). I
> agree that the best way to handle deps that we don't control is to create
> packages for those ourselves and then cede control of them to the 'proper'
> owners if/when they indicate a desire for this. Others have done the same
> thing elsewhere in NuGet. As an owner of the package its trivial to add
> another registered nuget account to the list of owners at a later point if
> needed so this is entirely supported in nuget. I'm not so sure that its
> equally simple to *remove* the original owner of a package, but that's just
> b/c I've not ever (yet) needed to try to do that so you may be perpetually
> stuck 'owning' these other packages, but there's no real harm in that IMO.
>
>
> Steve Bohlen
> [email protected]
> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
> http://twitter.com/sbohlen
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> I guess the right way is creating packages for those dependencies when
>> they don't exist yet. If the authors want control over those, I'd be happy
>> to surrender it (you can do that with NuGet, right?)
>>
>> I started by creating NHibernate.Caches.SysCache (which is the one I
>> needed)
>> Please check it out to see if I screwed up somehow and let me know, so I
>> can create the rest.
>>
>> Diego
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 09:58, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> This seems like a good idea to me. Creating NuGet packages is really
>>> quite simple -- you should be able to pick up the mechanics very quickly.
>>>
>>> The only (potential) complexity that I see in this is that I'm not 100%
>>> certain that there exists a NuGet package for each of the NHibernate.Caches
>>> supported targets so that you could explicitly take a dependency on them
>>> when constructing each of the NHCaches packages. This would probably mean
>>> that we would have to either:
>>>
>>> 1. bundle the actual Cache dependencies into each NHCaches package
>>> (not ideal and also probably not entirely legal to re-dist several of the
>>> cache dlls in our packages)
>>> 2. have each NHCache package only contain the NH-related assemblies
>>> but not any of the other 3rd-party assemblies required for them to
>>> actually
>>> work/run (this sort of breaks the unspoken NuGet 'contract' of "just add
>>> a
>>> package and it should work for you")
>>>
>>> What are other opinions on this?
>>>
>>> Steve Bohlen
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
>>> http://twitter.com/sbohlen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Diego Mijelshon
>>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Team,
>>>>
>>>> Are there any plans to create this?
>>>> I haven't created any NuGet packages yet, but if nobody has the time I
>>>> can learn.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Diego
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
