[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1080?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13771640#comment-13771640
]
Bruno Mahé edited comment on BIGTOP-1080 at 9/19/13 7:03 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for putting together a patch, but I fail to see what problem this ticket
solves.
Why do you think this is a good idea and how is this helping users?
Which problem is it solving? How often and in what context do you encounter
such issue?
What would be the use cases for our users?
Configuration files need to use alternative since users need to be able to
point to different (pseudo)?clusters. But we have nothing else to point our
binaries to.
So far, I don't think we should include this patch for the following reasons:
* This adds a lot of complexity without any benefit for Apache Bigtop
* There are already many levels of indirection (way too many actually) in our
packages
* I don't see what this additional level of indirection does that cannot be
achieved through other means
* If a user needs to use alternatives for binaries, he or she should not use
packages in the first place but probably tarballs. Packages are made to be
integrated with the system and therefore are not made to be taken apart.
Packages should be simple and stupid so _they just work_. Even more so when one
can just rename his scripts.
was (Author: bmahe):
Thanks for putting together a patch, but I fail to see what problem this
ticket solves.
Why do you think this is a good idea and how is this helping users?
Which problem is it solving? How often and in what context do you encounter
such issue?
What would be the use cases for our users?
Configuration files need to use alternative since users need to be able to
point to different (pseudo)?clusters. But we have nothing else to point our
binaries to.
So far, I don't think we should include this patch for the following reasons:
* This adds a lot of complexity without any benefit for Apache Bigtop
* There are already many levels of indirection (way too many actually) in our
packages
* I don't see what this additional level of indirection does that cannot be
achieved through other means
* If a user needs to use alternatives for binaries, he or she should not use
packages in the first place but probably tarballs. Packages are made to be
integrated with the system and therefore are not made to be taken apart.
Packages should be simple and stupid so _they just work_. Even more so when he
can just rename his scripts.
> Change /usr/bin scripts to be alternatives instead of flat files
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BIGTOP-1080
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1080
> Project: Bigtop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Debian, General, RPM
> Affects Versions: 0.7.0
> Reporter: Mark Grover
> Assignee: Mark Grover
> Fix For: 0.7.0
>
> Attachments: BIGTOP-1080.1.patch
>
>
> I think it would be a good idea to convert our /usr/bin scripts to be
> alternatives (i.e. symlinks) instead of flat files just like our
> configuration directories (/etc/component/config). It would make the package
> deployment more flexible for our users.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
