On 11/04/2012 04:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 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).
1/ It would be better to have separate package for each of them
2/ Given how forrest is being moved out of projects, I am not sure it is
worth the time spent packaging it.
3/ Maven is a beast. Maven also needs maven to be built. Maven has tons
of plugins. So I am not sure you want to get into it. Also more and more
distributions now provide maven 3.
4/ Any dependency packages by Apache Bigtop should not override system
ones, and no need to provide such dependency when the system already
provide one.
And above all, these packages of dependencies should not be mandatory.
