[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-722?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13503255#comment-13503255
]
Abhijeet Gaikwad commented on SQOOP-722:
----------------------------------------
Second suggestion is a go ahead.
For the first, I feel source and binary packages should be different. When a
user wants to pack only source, binary is an unnecessary attachment. Similarly,
when a user or more specifically RM creates a binary package, source will be
packed per hadoop profile - which doesn't just seem right, provided source is
hadoop profile independent. Let me know your views. If my understanding is
correct, its a -1.
> Improve Sqoop 2 packaging
> -------------------------
>
> Key: SQOOP-722
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-722
> Project: Sqoop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0
> Reporter: Jarek Jarcec Cecho
> Assignee: Jarek Jarcec Cecho
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: bugSQOOP-722.patch
>
>
> I would like to propose two improvements to current building (dist module):
> * Build both source and binary artifacts at the same time. As as I understand
> a lot of other projects are doing that as well and it seems more friendly
> than creating one package at the time.
> * Encode hadoop profile into binary artifact name. I believe that we should
> encode for which Hadoop version is given binary artifact suitable. I know
> that only two jars are actually "hadoop specific" whereas the others will
> work across all hadoop distributions, but I believe that it will be more user
> friendly.
--
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
