ahhh, sorry guys! umm, I think we'll have to find a sweet spot between beta-1 and beta-5.
From the assembly plugin docs: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/assembly.html (binaries section) outputFileNameMapping Sets the mapping pattern for all NON-UNPACKED dependencies included in this assembly. Default is ${module.artifactId}-${module.version}${dashClassifier?}.${module.extension}. (Since 2.2-beta-2; 2.2-beta-1 uses ${artifactId}-${version}${dashClassifier?}.${extension}) NOTE: If the dependencySet specifies unpack == true, outputFileNameMapping WILL NOT BE USED; in these cases, use outputDirectory. The default value is ${module.artifactId}-${module.version}${dashClassifier?}.${module.extension}. so maybe try beta-2.. ? my apologise. Paul On 15/03/2010, at 5:41 AM, Alexey Kovyrin wrote: > I've tried to build the trunk a few minutes ago (after pulling those > changes in assembly plugin) and I've noticed a few problems: > > 1) here is how the target dir looks after mvn package > assembly:directory, this feels wrong: http://gist.github.com/332129 > 2) ./bin/hbase is completely broken because of the change in the > target directory name (.dir suffix) > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >> I committed the change. Its much faster. Thanks lads. >> St.Ack >> >> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:34 PM, <psm...@aconex.com> wrote: >>> Yep i would downgrade to beta-1 in the pluginmanagement section it's way >>> faster. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14/03/2010, at 14:35, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I did this bit of the patch: >>>> >>>> >>>> @@ -308,10 +309,6 @@ >>>> <descriptors> >>>> <descriptor>src/assembly/bin.xml</descriptor> >>>> </descriptors> >>>> - <descriptorRefs> >>>> - <descriptorRef>src</descriptorRef> >>>> - <descriptorRef>project</descriptorRef> >>>> - </descriptorRefs> >>>> </configuration> >>>> </plugin> >>>> </plugins> >>>> >>>> >>>> ... but as Lars says, there is a version up in the pluginManagement >>>> section. Should I downgrade from beta5 to beta1? >>>> >>>> Thanks lads, >>>> St>Ack >>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the current pom doesn't specify a plugin version, it's using the >>>>>> latest version. >>>>> >>>>> The pluginManagement section actually does specify a plugin version: >>>>> 2.2-beta-5. But if that does cause problems - and the ticket you >>>>> linked to proves that feel free to downgrade but I would appreciate it >>>>> if you did it in the pluginManagement section. I don't have access to >>>>> the source code right now so I can't provide an updated patch. >>>>> >>>>> I'm swamped right now but I plan to continue working on the Maven >>>>> build as well once everything has settled down. Thanks for keeping up >>>>> the good work on this Paul! >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Lars >>>>> >>>> Return-Path: hbase-dev-return-18272-psmith=aconex....@hadoop.apache.org >>>> Received: from gatekeeper.aconex.com (LHLO gatekeeper.aconex.com) >>>> (192.168.102.10) by mail-au.aconex.com with LMTP; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 >>>> 14:35:27 >>>> +1100 (EST) >>>> Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) >>>> by gatekeeper.aconex.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ECCE4884AB >>>> for <psm...@aconex.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:27 +1100 (EST) >>>> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at aconex.com >>>> Received: from gatekeeper.aconex.com ([127.0.0.1]) >>>> by localhost (gatekeeper.aconex.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port >>>> 10024) >>>> with ESMTP id km2MgDbjPJTS for <psm...@aconex.com>; >>>> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:23 +1100 (EST) >>>> Received: from postoffice2.aconex.com (cuda.yarra.acx [192.168.102.2]) >>>> by gatekeeper.aconex.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC0B4884A0 >>>> for <psm...@aconex.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:23 +1100 (EST) >>>> X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1268537722-21ea001d0000-Y2sTMG >>>> X-Barracuda-URL: http://postoffice2.aconex.com:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi >>>> Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) >>>> by postoffice2.aconex.com (Spam & Virus Firewall) with ESMTP id >>>> A54D865A545 >>>> for <psm...@aconex.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:22 +1100 (EST) >>>> Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (postoffice.yarra.acx >>>> [192.168.102.1]) by postoffice2.aconex.com with ESMTP id rYMmYXVfAMBHWHz8 >>>> for <psm...@aconex.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:22 +1100 (EST) >>>> X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: >>>> hbase-dev-return-18272-psmith=aconex....@hadoop.apache.org >>>> Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) >>>> by postoffice.aconex.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B0B5BA50280 >>>> for <psm...@aconex.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:32:37 +1100 (EST) >>>> Received: (qmail 28038 invoked by uid 500); 14 Mar 2010 03:35:20 -0000 >>>> Mailing-List: contact hbase-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm >>>> Precedence: bulk >>>> List-Help: <mailto:hbase-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org> >>>> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:hbase-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org> >>>> List-Post: <mailto:hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org> >>>> List-Id: <hbase-dev.hadoop.apache.org> >>>> Reply-To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org >>>> Delivered-To: mailing list hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org >>>> Received: (qmail 28030 invoked by uid 99); 14 Mar 2010 03:35:20 -0000 >>>> Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) >>>> by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:35:20 +0000 >>>> X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 >>>> tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL >>>> X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org >>>> Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of saint....@gmail.com >>>> designates 209.85.217.225 as permitted sender) >>>> Received: from [209.85.217.225] (HELO mail-gx0-f225.google.com) >>>> (209.85.217.225) >>>> by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:35:19 +0000 >>>> Received: by gxk25 with SMTP id 25so1054366gxk.11 >>>> for <hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org>; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:34:58 -0800 >>>> (PST) >>>> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; >>>> d=gmail.com; s=gamma; >>>> h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to >>>> :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to >>>> :content-type; >>>> bh=2XJuE3DRSu1PZi6mitn5hB/CWqgf8oZZg8Cq7kmSssE=; >>>> b=RZFvxOjcosPp1kKzR3S2IRyF3s6U3RShvv32DKopAtC3RpA7y1jvGLXadoM96FJI0Z >>>> >>>> YOxb2Yowwa4zIHn4mz3A8aj8TxvnefJ6Obu6uTWhOan1qgSI2KSIZQjKbQN9QyDsVSo0 >>>> Z5lgnd67OEHNbQIGwY2x2amNg9t13BtblmtlY= >>>> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; >>>> d=gmail.com; s=gamma; >>>> h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date >>>> :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; >>>> b=ohJ64CZsLYoxZXEC223B1Yjf039FwFNukpuGNPm7MSIp+GGT+SteBG2+DdAaTCQ7L7 >>>> >>>> VKVtv6tsSxIZCQjjhPmklrA1agRZY6ebfHgD5os7Ob2lZ/AsSJyQwOlCZYgoRLm0L4nB >>>> ym72VyxsSZZedzkdFKkccGaQcf6544depe/Ug= >>>> MIME-Version: 1.0 >>>> Sender: saint....@gmail.com >>>> Received: by 10.101.42.12 with SMTP id u12mr332581anj.56.1268537698290; >>>> Sat, >>>> 13 Mar 2010 19:34:58 -0800 (PST) >>>> In-Reply-To: <fda1bfdd1003121936x6362dea5k3f37c2d4f17a9...@mail.gmail.com> >>>> References: <79b274bd-cb9a-4b81-b224-c0a7f8586...@aconex.com> >>>> <fda1bfdd1003121936x6362dea5k3f37c2d4f17a9...@mail.gmail.com> >>>> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:34:58 -0800 >>>> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2cf34d151e284d55 >>>> Message-ID: <7c962aed1003131934h7b03a75cs85ffbb164ff48...@mail.gmail.com> >>>> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Maven assembly speed issue (from discussion with >>>> jdcryans on IRC) >>>> Subject: Re: Maven assembly speed issue (from discussion with jdcryans on >>>> IRC) >>>> From: Stack <st...@duboce.net> >>>> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>>> X-Barracuda-Connect: postoffice.yarra.acx[192.168.102.1] >>>> X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1268537722 >>>> X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 >>>> X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Aconex Staff Email Spam Firewall at >>>> aconex.com >>>> X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02 >>>> X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using global scores of >>>> TAG_LEVEL=3.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=5.0 KILL_LEVEL=6.0 tests= >>>> X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.24799 >>>> Rule breakdown below >>>> pts rule name description >>>> ---- ---------------------- >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> I did this bit of the patch: >>>> >>>> >>>> @@ -308,10 +309,6 @@ >>>> <descriptors> >>>> <descriptor>src/assembly/bin.xml</descriptor> >>>> </descriptors> >>>> - <descriptorRefs> >>>> - <descriptorRef>src</descriptorRef> >>>> - <descriptorRef>project</descriptorRef> >>>> - </descriptorRefs> >>>> </configuration> >>>> </plugin> >>>> </plugins> >>>> >>>> >>>> ... but as Lars says, there is a version up in the pluginManagement >>>> section. Should I downgrade from beta5 to beta1? >>>> >>>> Thanks lads, >>>> St>Ack >>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Lars Francke <lars.fran...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the current pom doesn't specify a plugin version, it's using the >>>>>> latest version. >>>>> >>>>> The pluginManagement section actually does specify a plugin version: >>>>> 2.2-beta-5. But if that does cause problems - and the ticket you >>>>> linked to proves that feel free to downgrade but I would appreciate it >>>>> if you did it in the pluginManagement section. I don't have access to >>>>> the source code right now so I can't provide an updated patch. >>>>> >>>>> I'm swamped right now but I plan to continue working on the Maven >>>>> build as well once everything has settled down. Thanks for keeping up >>>>> the good work on this Paul! >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Lars >>>>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Alexey Kovyrin > http://kovyrin.net/
