[Design] Need clarification on a 0.7 Calendar tenant

[Mike Taylor]

On Feb 17, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Ted Leung wrote:

>
> On Feb 17, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Mike Taylor wrote:
>
>> I don't remember being in any discussion about packaging/release 
>> requirements for 0.7 - I would have brought up the issues with 4.0.x
>
> FWIW, I have always understood the tenet in terms of packing/release.  
>  I think that we need to make an active project/deliverable to do what 
> we can on our side to get pylucene to the point where distributions 
> can accept it.   Continuing to rely on bleeding edge versions of gcj 
> pretty much means we'll never get into any distributions.

I'm not sure if bleeding edge is appropriate for the version that 
PyLucene uses now - but your question and also the conversation andi 
and I just had on IRC about what exactly is prevent us from getting a 
debian package into the secondary debian package lists points out that 
I think we need to specifically list the issues and start tracking what 
is needed to fix them.

I know that I had done this much earlier so I will take ownership of 
this task and update the wiki pages and report back here.

---
Bear

Build and Release Engineer
Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
bear at osafoundation.org
http://www.osafoundation.org

bear at code-bear.com
http://code-bear.com

PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111  D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/attachments/20060217/131ca3e6/PGP.pgp