enable building nuget package #587
Conversation
|
Fixes #524 |
| <description>See project site for more info.</description> | ||
| <version>3.0.0-experimental</version> | ||
| <authors>Google Inc.</authors> | ||
| <owners>protobuf-packages</owners> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we use a similar pattern for gRPC (grpc-packages) and we are happy about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What impact does this have? (The Nuspec docs aren't terribly clear.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is probably overriden anyway when you are uploading the package to nuget, so currently it only serves as documentation under which nuget account we want to published it (I've already created that account and reserved the package name).
|
That path looks right to me, but we should change the C# project file to use profile 259 (which supports dnxcore). |
| <title>Google Protocol Buffers C#</title> | ||
| <summary>C# runtime library for Protocol Buffers - Google's data interchange format.</summary> | ||
| <description>See project site for more info.</description> | ||
| <version>3.0.0-experimental</version> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would be better as 3.0.0-alpha1 or something like that - we can't reuse the same version number.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wasn't really planning to upload the package with this version, this is meant more as a placeholder and the actual version under which we publish is TBD.
Current version of protobufs is 3.0.0-alpha3, so let's see what will be the version of the next release.
Btw, adding the non-numeric suffix makes the nuget packages marked as pre-release and this has some annoying consequences (like every package that depends on this packages has to be also marked as pre-release).
Should I change the version to something or we leave it like this and determine the right version before we publish?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While annoying, the pre-release "viral" nature absolutely makes sense. I think you should either make the version empty so that it's invalid in source control, or put it to a version which wouldn't be too bad if you published it.
Possibly 3.0.0-beta* would be okay, as "invalid, but indicating the expected next release number"... (I'm assuming * is invalid in a version number. I haven't checked, but it would be pathologically nasty, at least.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
changed version to 3.0.0-beta*
|
Side note - we'll need to sort out signing keys soon. I assume we're not aiming for binary compatibility between the next build and anything else though, so it's not urgent. |
|
Yep, let's keep signing in mind. I was probably gonna go with the same approach that noda time and google api client library uses. |
|
Righto - I'll fix the PCL profile separately. (It may require a bit more work.) |
-- add .nuspec file for the new C# protobuf package and a simple script to build the package
-- a bit of cleanup
@anandolee FYI