Let me state why we included *all* the dependencies in the package distribution. Initially I thought this distribution should just work out-of-the-box after the download. That includes all unit tests, all scripts in core as well as contrib. Note that the assumption was to not have the user run ./sbt udpate to download dependencies or ./sbt package to build the sub projects.
Now, assuming we have the user do both, here is the set of jars we can include - ./core/lib/zkclient-20110412.jar ./lib/apache-rat-0.8-SNAPSHOT.jar ./lib/sbt-launch.jar ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/avro-1.4.0.jar ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/hadoop-0.20.2-core.jar ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/pig-0.8.0-core.jar ./contrib/hadoop-consumer/lib/piggybank.jar ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/avro-1.4.0.jar ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/commons-logging-1.0.4.jar ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/hadoop-0.20.2-core.jar ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/jackson-core-asl-1.5.5.jar ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/jackson-mapper-asl-1.5.5.jar ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/pig-0.8.0-core.jar ./contrib/hadoop-producer/lib/piggybank.jar .* /contrib/hadoop-consumer/target/scala_2.8.0/hadoop-consumer_2.8.0-0.7.0.jar ./contrib/hadoop-producer/target/scala_2.8.0/hadoop-producer_2.8.0-0.7.0.jar ./examples/target/scala_2.8.0/kafka-java-examples-0.7.0.jar ./core/target/scala_2.8.0/kafka-0.7.0.jar* The jars in bold are Kafka jars. The question is how will the user be able to run our jars, with just the stripped set of dependent jars we package ? >> Many of the issues about distribution would automatically be solved if Maven were used. We use maven. All the jars in "lib_managed" are downloaded from Maven. The question is not whether or not to use Maven. The question is whether you have the user download dependencies build the jars themselves or not. Once that is clear, we can reduce the set of dependent jars we include. I would encourage everyone to give your inputs now, since this is important to iron out for further releases. Thanks, Neha On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > It would... > > Many of the issues about distribution would automatically be solved if Maven were used. > > <disclaimer>I'm a Maven zealot</disclaimer> > > On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:17 AM, Mark wrote: > >> In regards to the size of the distribution, wouldn't a mavenized build help with this? >> >> On 11/4/11 7:42 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Chris Burroughs wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/03/2011 03:41 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>>>> Zowie. Look at all these jars that I have to make sure are kosher to distribute: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can someone help me? >>>>> >>>> Assuming we can cut down on the boot/test jars. All we need is a table >>>> of "jar-name,licence", correct? >>> As far as the number of jars I am only concerned with regard to the size of the distribution, 50M. That seems excessive to me and provides no real value given that the consumers of the distribution can easily build the product themselves. >>> >>> With that said, yes, it would be helpful of there was a list: >>> >>> jar name, license, URL that indicates the license for the jar >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alan >>> > >
