Community site? package hosting?

Sep 7, 2010 at 4:17 PM

So has any thought or discussion been put into the hosting side of NuPack?  I know having a feed coming from codeplex would be a great start, it seems like microsoft should have a feed of their own. It seems like a GemCutter / site should exist.  I am guessing it needs to be community owned in order to stay light and flexible so that the Microsoft Legal does not have to approve every package.  Just wanted to see what thought anyone has put into this.

Sep 7, 2010 at 4:39 PM

This is in progress. I'll provide more details when I have them. My requirements are:

1. A default site for hosting packages and providing the feed. This would be our equivalent to Anyone else can have their own feed (like but this is the one the tool looks at by default.

2. No approval process. If you have an account on the site, you can add packages.

3. Packages can be hosted on the site, or pointed to on another site. Thus the site itself can host your package (except for GPLv3) OR you can point the site to your package hosted elsewhere (much like Web Platform Installer). We're giving developers a choice here.

Sep 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM

4. Package authors need to allow other authors to add/update packages. This is how rubygems works (gem add-author authorname, or something like that). Then I can build a package for someone and delegate the ownership of the package over to them without having to deal with the website owner(s).

Sep 7, 2010 at 4:50 PM

I would really like to see:

1. some up/down voting (ala StackOverflow style) for packages.

2. Support Open ID as the login mechinsim.

3. Delegation of package ownership

Sep 7, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Agreed with those features Eric. The hosting is a separate concern but should it be included in this project (re:voting of features). I'm almost thinking the hosting solution should be a separate project with it's own features and codebase?

Sep 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Yes, the hosting solution is a separate project that's being co-driven by the Orchard team as they need a gallery for their own modules and we have a lot of features in common. In fact, we hope to make this a common gallery implementation with other communities such as Umbraco and Screwturn Wiki (who've been working with MS on this).