[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael Berman updated ACCUMULO-2229:
-------------------------------------
Description:
(forked from ACCUMULO-1983)
For 1.6 the init.d scripts were moved into the module for the corresponding
service rather than all being piled into the assemble module. To get them into
the assembly, the scripts are just copied by path out of assemble's siblings.
This is simple and it's easy to see what's going on when looking at the pom,
but it definitely violates maven best practices (don't reference ".."). I
think if we want to keep the init.d scripts with their corresponding modules,
the maveny way to do it would be to declare the init.d script as an artifact of
each module (of type "init.d" or something), and then declare them as
dependencies of the packager, which could then use the copy-dependencies goal
to get them into the assembly. It's more lines of pom and possibly more opaque
as far as figuring out where each file is coming from, but it would be more
portable and less sensitive to module rearrangements in the future.
Is this a good idea? Is it pom overkill?
was:
(forked from ACCUMULO-1983)
For 1.6 the init.d scripts were moved into the module for the corresponding
service rather than all being piled into the assemble module. To get them into
the assembly, the scripts are just copied by path out of assemble's siblings.
This is simple and it's easy to see what's going on looking at the pom, but it
definitely violates maven best practices (don't reference ".."). I think if we
want to keep the init.d scripts with their corresponding modules, the maveny
way to do it would be to declare the init.d script as an artifact of each
module (of type "init.d" or something), and then declare them as dependencies
of the packager, which could then use the copy-dependencies goal to get them
into the assembly. It's more lines of pom and possibly more opaque as far as
figuring out where each file is coming from, but it would be more portable and
less sensitive to module rearrangements in the future.
Is this a good idea? Is it pom overkill?
> Make init.d scripts get into the assembly in a more maveny way
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-2229
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2229
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: build
> Affects Versions: 1.6.0
> Reporter: Michael Berman
> Priority: Minor
>
> (forked from ACCUMULO-1983)
> For 1.6 the init.d scripts were moved into the module for the corresponding
> service rather than all being piled into the assemble module. To get them
> into the assembly, the scripts are just copied by path out of assemble's
> siblings. This is simple and it's easy to see what's going on when looking
> at the pom, but it definitely violates maven best practices (don't reference
> ".."). I think if we want to keep the init.d scripts with their
> corresponding modules, the maveny way to do it would be to declare the init.d
> script as an artifact of each module (of type "init.d" or something), and
> then declare them as dependencies of the packager, which could then use the
> copy-dependencies goal to get them into the assembly. It's more lines of pom
> and possibly more opaque as far as figuring out where each file is coming
> from, but it would be more portable and less sensitive to module
> rearrangements in the future.
> Is this a good idea? Is it pom overkill?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
