My inquiry is not about removing the tgz's, simply slimming it down. Let me review the bigtop spec to see which bits it's using. My guess is we can drop all the dependency jars from lib and only ship our normal and uber assemblies.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > 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) >
