The base directory in both are accumulo-<version>. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Okay, so, personally, my favorite combination of options is: >> >> Drop the assemble portion if possible, keep "source-release" and >> "binary-release" as the classifiers for maven, and rename the >> filenames to "-src.tar.gz" and "-bin.tar.gz" when mirroring and > > > This sounds great. What will the dir names be when the tar files are > extracted? > >> >> publishing on the website (doesn't even require re-signing). This >> keeps maven artifacts explicit, and follows conventions for download >> links from the mirrors/website. While maven has a convention for >> filenames, we don't have to be constrained by maven's filename >> conventions when we publish on the website/mirrors. >> >> -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't want to change the source-release tarball name, because I >> >> don't want to override the parent pom conventions for the *official* >> >> source release. However, there may be more to be done with the >> >> binary-release tarball... I'm just not sure what is the best option, >> >> keeping in mind the factors of 1) consistency with prior releases, 2) >> >> maven standards and conventions, 3) consistency between what is >> >> published in Maven and what is published in the mirrors, and 4) not >> >> holding up the release. >> > >> > >> > Christopher, thanks for the detailed explanation. >> > >> > I believe I understand your goals regarding conventions (sticking to >> > them), >> > but something seems a little strange about the 'source-release' tarball >> > name >> > considering the Apache Maven project itself does not follow that >> > convention >> > for their artifacts (see: http://maven.apache.org/download.cgi) -- >> > neither >> > do Hadoop, Lucene or HTTPd. >> > >> > That said, there appear to be a number of projects that >do< use >> > source-release (https://www.google.com/search?q=source-release.tar.gz), >> > so >> > if it source-release.tar.gz is generally what's preferred over >> > src.tar.gz, >> > let's go with it. >> > >> > Point taken about dist vs. bin -- I'd seen dist used in previous versons >> > of >> > accumulo, but bin makes much more sense and seems to be a common >> > convention. >> > The second most common convention seems to be leaving the type off the >> > tar.gz entirely, e.g: accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz - according to google, >> > binary-release.tar.gz seems to be used absolutely nowhere, so accumulo >> > would >> > be certainly a trailblazer in this territory if we followed that naming >> > convention. >> > >> > Both of these facts aside, the oddest thing to me is the inclusion of >> > 'assemble' in the artifact name. I understand why it is there and why it >> > is >> > necessary to assemble everything in a separate maven submodule, but >> > changing >> > this should be as simple as changing the finalName parameter in the >> > assembly >> > plugin configuration, shouldn't it? If we really must include something >> > in >> > the artifact name, consider the more meaningful term 'distribution' >> > instead >> > of 'assemble'? Then we wind up with something like: >> > accumulo-distribution-1.5.0-source-release.tar.gz (which is pretty >> > long-winded, isn't it?) >> > >> > So, preferring the terse, I'd vote for accumulo-1.5.0-src.tar.gz and >> > accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz or accumulo-1.5.0-bin.tar.gz >> > >> > >> > > >
