lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] release Lucene 2.1
Date Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:38:02 GMT

On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> On Feb 15, 2007, at 2:55 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>> : > I'm not exactly sure if this is show stopper, but when I get the
>> : > binary, the build.xml that is included is not usable b/c it is
>> : > missing common-build.xml.
>> : Oops... I think we should fix this for the release if at all
>> : possible.  It is handy for folks to be able to pull down a  
>> buildable
>> : archive and rest assured that they are getting something built  
>> at the
>> : same time the binary was made.
>> I'm confused ... the binary builds don't even include src/java/ so  
>> it's
>> not a buildable archive by any strech of hte imagination -- how would
>> having the common-build.xml help assure people of anything?
>> i'm not even sure why we inlcude the build.xml in the binary  
>> releases.
> Yeah, I'm not sure we need the build included for binary releases  
> either, I just think it should work if it is included.
> What's weird, is I don't think much has changed build wise from the  
> last release, yet we all of a sudden noticed all these things.

Sorry, I was thinking by "binary" you meant the -src.(zip|tar.gz)  
"binary" and that is where the build was failing.  The -src  
distributions should be buildable, the purely binary releases should,  
of course, be only the .jar files and LICENSE files and such, but no  
source (except perhaps the demo code?).

I should shut up and go try the darn build and see what happens since  
I had my hands in there once up on a time.  Ok.... off to see what's  
up first hand....


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message