Roman, If we cannot resolve the Ranger licensing issues in a reasonable timeframe, do you feel it would be helpful to provide the HAWQ optional Ranger support in a subsequent convenience binary release? The project is learning a considerable amount on the binary release process. To keep the project momentum, I feel it will help to complete the HAWQ C/C++ and PXF components at this point.
Thoughts? -=ed espino On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Ruilong Huo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Roman, > > > > Please let us know if you have a chance to review the java components for > > pxf and ranger and share with your feedback. Thanks. > > Yes I have. Here's what I found out: > 1. For PXF all you have to do at this point is to make sure that each > JAR/WAR > files that gets shipped has LICENSE, NOTICE and DISCLAIMER embedded > in its META-INF/ folder in the JAR itself. Given that PXF doesn't > seem > to bundle any extra bits -- that should get you clear for JARs > > 2. For Ranger plugin it gets more complicated. I will start by > making sure that all > the JAR/WAR files that are produced by HAWQ itself get the same > treatment > as PXF does in #1. That still won't get you off the hook though > for RPMs, because > it seems that RPMs re-ship a LOT of dependencies. For those > dependencies I'd > recommend having a build script that extracts LICENSE, NOTICE > and DISCLAIMER > (if any) from all the bundled JARs/WARs (things under > plugin-service/lib for example) > and places them in a special folder within the RPM itself. > > So as long as you do that and make sure that LICENSE, NOTICE and DISCLAIMER > find their way into all of the RPMs (regardless of whether they > contain C/C++ binaries > of JARs/WARs) you should be good for your next release. > > Makes sense? > > Thanks, > Roman. > -- *Ed Espino*
