not sure about the right answer to this. but you'll need protoc as well, no?
Alejandro On Nov 4, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi! > > right now I'm faced with the boring problem of updating the > toolchain and build slaves for the Bigtop 0.5.0 release. This > time I decided to do it right and look at: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-601 > > Given that at this point the content of this proposed bigtop-build > package is going to be limited to ant, maven and forrest I'm > wondering whether it wouldn't be nicer if packaged those 3 > as bigtop-ant, bigtop-maven and bigtop-forrest respectively > and had an honest build dependencies on them in our > SPEC/control files. > > We can go even so far as to make sure that we track which > of our supported platforms package that stuff natively > and have the proper dependencies in place (if possible). > > I guess my biggest question is this -- on platforms where > we would still have to have bigtop-[maven|ant|forrest] > as a formal build dependency -- will this upset anything? > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Roman. > > P.S. This doesn't touch upon an issue of packaging JDK. > At the moment -- I'm not solving it with the hopes that > we can simply transition to OpenJDK 7 at some point > (which seems to be available on most new platforms).
