Sorry, I'm behind - just reading the Nuget Documentation now.
I think we want to use "Lucene.Net", I agree with everything else, but I have no idea how to modify the other packages. I'm also not sure how to sign our our code base > now, in the .NET ecosystem of opensource libraries it is super important to > have the nuget package released in sync with the binary release. Actually > many project are even just releasing the nuget package. > > Currently there is a bit of confusion in the list of packages: > > - There is "Lucene" with project id "lucene"by Apache SF relased on jan > 11 frozen on version 2.9.2.2 http://nuget.org/List/Packages/Lucene > - There is "Lucene.Net - (strong named 2.0/4.0) - 2.9.2.2" with project > id "lucene.net" released on Sept 11 still by Apache SF on version > 2.9.2.2 http://nuget.org/List/Packages/Lucene.Net > > I guess ppl think the good one is "lucene" b/c it has 3k download vs 173 of > the other (almost 300 x month vs 85 x month) > > But nothing yet on 2.9.4. > > I suggest we reorganize the Nuget packages doing: > 1 - *delete *the "lucene" package (or add a new version with just a readme > file that clearly marks it is obsolete if not possible to remove the > project) > 2 - *rename *the "lucene.net" package public title to "Lucene.net" (remove > the version number as they are not supposed to stay in the name) > 3 - *create *a "lucene.net.strong" and move here the strongly signed > libraries > 4 - *upgrade both* to 2.9.4 > > I think the script to create the nuget pkg is already in place, if not, let > me know and I'll look into making one. > > As last thing, I just want to stress on the importance of having a NuGet > pkg nowadays to be relevant in the .NET space > > Simone > > -- > Simone Chiaretta > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber > twitter: @simonech > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic > "Life is short, play hard"
