Not building a tgz will mess up Bigtop packaging, please don't rip it out if it's not critical.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nothing filed; just asking for my own enlightenment. Let me see about > putting our tgz's on a diet. > > Somewhat related: has anyone run make_rc.sh from a mac? It uses command > syntax that apparently is not compatible with BSD tools. Should I point it > at GNU tools, has anyone tried that? > > -n > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.ya...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Sounds like we can rip it out then - did you already file a jira? > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:06 PM Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > My understanding is that we already run via standalone uberjar for > > > sqlline.py and psql.py ... which may be a bug for folks who have > deployed > > > on versions of HBase/Hadoop we're not packaging against. The only > things > > in > > > their class path is the HBASE_CONF_DIR and the client assembly jar. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jesse Yates <jya...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > I think it was for convenience of packaging. While we have transitive > > > > dependencies, they resolve when including the HBase/Hadoop classpaths > > as > > > > well. I think mostly this was to make it easy to run from the tarball > > > using > > > > sqline or the various python scripts in the bin/ directory. > > > > > > > > If no one is using them, then by all means, we should remove building > > > them. > > > > Or build them completely so we can run standalone (and then maybe > > people > > > > will use it). > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM Mujtaba Chohan <mujt...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jesse I think you initially worked on Phoenix assembly tar and jar > > > > > packaging. Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Quick question: > > > > >> > > > > >> Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no > Phoenix > > > > >> executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for > > > > >> applications. Why bother with lib and all this business? > > > > >> > > > > >> If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the tgz, > our > > > > >> current > > > > >> means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn > > > > >> dependency:list > > > > >> shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of which > we > > > only > > > > >> package 38. > > > > >> > > > > >> So why bother? > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Nick > > > > >> > > > > >> *** > > > > >> $ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep compile | > cut > > > -d: > > > > >> -f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l > > > > >> 201 > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
