Jay, could you post this link to the wiki as well? Thanks!
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 09:41AM, jay vyas wrote: > By the way, I did a hack session w/ the guys at BU on how to build/test > rpms using our existing vagrant workflow > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GfcKEjO6e8 > > You can get a good feel for some of the lower level details hard to capture > in text by watching it. > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Andrew, > > > > do you might putting this on our wiki? Such a great and well-put > > explanation! > > I am sure it will help a lot of new contributors to get up to speed much > > quicker! > > > > Thanks! > > Cos > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:01PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > > Inline > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Andre Kelpe <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I am currently learning the ins and outs of bigtop to work on the > > Cascading > > > > integration (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-1766). I > > have a > > > > few questions around packaging in bigtop: > > > > > > > > 1) most linux distros have packaging guidelines that should be > > followed. > > > > Does bigtop follow any set of rules in particular? Is there a linting > > tool > > > > for spec files etc? > > > > > > > > > > This is distro specific. RedHat family distributions (RHEL, Fedora, > > Centos, > > > Amazon Linux) offer 'rpmlint'. You can install it and run it by hand. > > From > > > personal experience if you build deb packages on Ubuntu the package build > > > will run the lintian tool automatically. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Related to 1): Does bigtop require to follow a certain directory > > layout? > > > > Our tools are currently meant to be untarred and used as is, if bigtop > > > > requires them to be split over the file-system, we will have to work on > > > > that upstream before they can be included. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, broadly speaking we follow the Linux standard base (LSB). A typical > > > package build happens in four steps. We move files around in the third > > step > > > to make packages look more like LSB. Let me take you through one package > > as > > > an example: > > > > > > Step 1. Download source tarball from the software release site and expand > > > it. > > > > > > Step 2. do-package-build > > > > > > Here, for example, see what we do for ZooKeeper: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/bigtop-packages/src/common/zookeeper/do-component-build > > > . We kick off a build of the component's binary artifacts while first > > > normalizing dependency versions according to the release BOM. > > > > > > Step 3. install_<component>.sh > > > > > > Again let's look at the ZK package: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/bigtop-packages/src/common/zookeeper/install_zookeeper.sh > > > . Here we take the resulting tarball from the component build, expand it, > > > and move the locations of various types of files around to be more > > > LSB-like. > > > > > > Step 4. Native packager > > > > > > Finally we hand off the expanded and munged result from step 3 to the > > > native packager. For ZK, the RPM specfile used is here: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/bigtop-packages/src/rpm/zookeeper/SPECS/zookeeper.spec > > > . The Debian package control files are here: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/bigtop/tree/master/bigtop-packages/src/deb/zookeeper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) I noticed that the packages are build from source instead of > > re-using > > > > binary releases. Is that a strict requirement or does it just happen > > to be > > > > that way? For the Cascading integration I was planning on downloading > > our > > > > binary releases so that bigtop ship with the same bits as our SDK. > > > > > > > > > > We typically build packages from source so we can normalize > > dependencies. > > > For example, if a given Bigtop release ships with Hadoop 2.6.0 but the > > > Cascading SDK includes 2.5.1 artifacts, this would be ugly at best and > > > broken at worst. > > > > > > > > > > 4) What is your take on packaging standalone libraries? I noticed that > > most > > > > parts of bigtop are tools in the broader sense. Something one can > > invoke on > > > > the command line, but there is also a package for apache crunch, which > > is a > > > > library. What is the reasoning here? Would it make sense to build > > packages > > > > for libraries in the Cascading eco-system? > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure we have anything that amounts to a policy here. Crunch isn't > > > the only case. We package the DataFu library of UDFs for Pig. We package > > > the Phoenix SQL skin add-on for HBase. We also package Tez, which is a > > YARN > > > application requiring Hadoop, and although it could be useful on its own > > > it's meant to be picked up and used by the Hive and Pig packages. > > > > > > If a champion for a component shows up we will give it a look. We could > > > absolutely build a core Cascading package and then a number of library or > > > add-on packages, if that's how you would like to set things up as > > champion > > > or maintainer of same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your answers! > > > > > > > > - André > > > > > > > > -- > > > > André Kelpe > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://concurrentinc.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > -- > jay vyas
