[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2229?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13880696#comment-13880696
]
Christopher Tubbs edited comment on ACCUMULO-2229 at 1/24/14 3:43 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
{quote}We don't produce separate packaged artifacts for each component, do
we?{quote}
Yes, actually, we do (See ACCUMULO-210 and related issues).
{quote}The particular thing I'm suggesting is unmaveny is...{quote}
I'm not proposing anything to address that. My response to that specific
suggestion was that it is overkill and not necessary to create additional
artifacts for that. Most everything else I said in the previous comment was an
attempt to convey context for that opinion, by trying to convey how these
scripts fit into existing (and potentially future) artifacts, but the short
response is: "-1, overkill".
If these were not part of a multi-module project, these interdependencies would
be very important... but since they are... I don't see it as an issue of any
concern. (We have a similar issue depending on thrift IDL files in the build).
was (Author: ctubbsii):
{quote}We don't produce separate packaged artifacts for each component, do
we?{quote}
Yes, actually, we do (See ACCUMULO-210 and related issues).
{quote}The particular thing I'm suggesting is unmaveny is...{quote}
I'm not proposing anything to address that. My response to that specific
suggestion was that it is overkill and not necessary to create additional
artifacts for that. Most everything else I said in the previous comment was an
attempt to convey context for that opinion, by trying to convey how these
scripts fit into existing (and potentially future) artifacts, but the short
response is: "-1, 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: Improvement
> 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)
