On 16/03/2010, at 7:56, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
I tried beta2. It only assembled the bin.tar.gz. The beta3 did same. For now I just put back beta5 since it works (if slow). Thanks Paul, St.Ack On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Paul Smith <psm...@aconex.com> wrote: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 wayfaster. 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 pluginManagementsection. Should I downgrade from beta5 to beta1? Thanks lads, St>AckOn 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 thelatest version.The pluginManagement section actually does specify a plugin version:2.2-beta-5. But if that does cause problems - and the ticket youlinked 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 tothe 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 upthe good work on this Paul! Cheers, LarsReturn-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 201014:35:27 +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, port10024) 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 rYMmYXVfAMBHWHz8for <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 ezmlmPrecedence: 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.orgReceived: (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 +0000X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0tests= FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAILX-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 +0000Received: by gxk25 with SMTP id 25so1054366gxk.11for <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=R ZFvxOjcosPp1kKzR3S2IRyF3s6U3RShvv32DKopAtC3RpA7y1jvGLXadoM96FJI0ZYOxb2Yowwa4zIHn4mz3A8aj8TxvnefJ6Obu6uTWhOan1qgSI2KSIZQjKbQN9QyDsVSo0
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+DdAaTCQ7L7VKVtv6tsSxIZCQjjhPmklrA1agRZY6ebfHgD5os7Ob2lZ/ AsSJyQwOlCZYgoRLm0L4nBym72VyxsSZZedzkdFKkccGaQcf6544depe/Ug= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: saint....@gmail.comReceived: 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: 2cf34d151e284d55Message-ID: <7c962aed1003131934h7b03a75cs85ffbb164ff48...@mail.gmail.com > X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Maven assembly speed issue (from discussion withjdcryans on IRC)Subject: Re: Maven assembly speed issue (from discussion with jdcryans onIRC) 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 pluginManagementsection. Should I downgrade from beta5 to beta1? Thanks lads, St>AckOn 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 thelatest version.The pluginManagement section actually does specify a plugin version:2.2-beta-5. But if that does cause problems - and the ticket youlinked 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 tothe 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 upthe good work on this Paul! Cheers, Lars-- Alexey Kovyrin http://kovyrin.net/
