Yeah, only the bin.tar.gz was produced. St.Ack
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:28 PM, <psm...@aconex.com> wrote: > Did assembly:directory not keep the directory? Or are you saying the other 2 > archives were not produced (this being because we removed the 2 descriptor > refs) > > > > 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 >>>>>> 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/ >>> >>> >
