You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@phoenix.apache.org by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> on 2015/04/17 21:39:42 UTC
Assemblies and tgz's
Quick question:
Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no Phoenix
executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for
applications. Why bother with lib and all this business?
If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the tgz, our current
means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn dependency:list
shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of which we only
package 38.
So why bother?
Thanks,
Nick
***
$ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep compile | cut -d:
-f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
201
Re: Assemblies and tgz's
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Right, and in that regard see the reply I just sent :-) Mails crossed in
transit.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My inquiry is not about removing the tgz's, simply slimming it down. Let me
> review the bigtop spec to see which bits it's using. My guess is we can
> drop all the dependency jars from lib and only ship our normal and uber
> assemblies.
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Not building a tgz will mess up Bigtop packaging, please don't rip it out
> > if it's not critical.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Nothing filed; just asking for my own enlightenment. Let me see about
> > > putting our tgz's on a diet.
> > >
> > > Somewhat related: has anyone run make_rc.sh from a mac? It uses command
> > > syntax that apparently is not compatible with BSD tools. Should I point
> > it
> > > at GNU tools, has anyone tried that?
> > >
> > > -n
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.yates@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sounds like we can rip it out then - did you already file a jira?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:06 PM Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My understanding is that we already run via standalone uberjar for
> > > > > sqlline.py and psql.py ... which may be a bug for folks who have
> > > deployed
> > > > > on versions of HBase/Hadoop we're not packaging against. The only
> > > things
> > > > in
> > > > > their class path is the HBASE_CONF_DIR and the client assembly jar.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jesse Yates <jy...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think it was for convenience of packaging. While we have
> > transitive
> > > > > > dependencies, they resolve when including the HBase/Hadoop
> > classpaths
> > > > as
> > > > > > well. I think mostly this was to make it easy to run from the
> > tarball
> > > > > using
> > > > > > sqline or the various python scripts in the bin/ directory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If no one is using them, then by all means, we should remove
> > building
> > > > > them.
> > > > > > Or build them completely so we can run standalone (and then maybe
> > > > people
> > > > > > will use it).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM Mujtaba Chohan <
> mujtaba@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jesse I think you initially worked on Phoenix assembly tar and
> > jar
> > > > > > > packaging. Any thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <
> > ndimiduk@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Quick question:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no
> > > Phoenix
> > > > > > >> executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for
> > > > > > >> applications. Why bother with lib and all this business?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the
> tgz,
> > > our
> > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > >> means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn
> > > > > > >> dependency:list
> > > > > > >> shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of
> which
> > > we
> > > > > only
> > > > > > >> package 38.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> So why bother?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> Nick
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ***
> > > > > > >> $ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep
> compile |
> > > cut
> > > > > -d:
> > > > > > >> -f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
> > > > > > >> 201
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: Assemblies and tgz's
Posted by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>.
My inquiry is not about removing the tgz's, simply slimming it down. Let me
review the bigtop spec to see which bits it's using. My guess is we can
drop all the dependency jars from lib and only ship our normal and uber
assemblies.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Not building a tgz will mess up Bigtop packaging, please don't rip it out
> if it's not critical.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nothing filed; just asking for my own enlightenment. Let me see about
> > putting our tgz's on a diet.
> >
> > Somewhat related: has anyone run make_rc.sh from a mac? It uses command
> > syntax that apparently is not compatible with BSD tools. Should I point
> it
> > at GNU tools, has anyone tried that?
> >
> > -n
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds like we can rip it out then - did you already file a jira?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:06 PM Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My understanding is that we already run via standalone uberjar for
> > > > sqlline.py and psql.py ... which may be a bug for folks who have
> > deployed
> > > > on versions of HBase/Hadoop we're not packaging against. The only
> > things
> > > in
> > > > their class path is the HBASE_CONF_DIR and the client assembly jar.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jesse Yates <jy...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think it was for convenience of packaging. While we have
> transitive
> > > > > dependencies, they resolve when including the HBase/Hadoop
> classpaths
> > > as
> > > > > well. I think mostly this was to make it easy to run from the
> tarball
> > > > using
> > > > > sqline or the various python scripts in the bin/ directory.
> > > > >
> > > > > If no one is using them, then by all means, we should remove
> building
> > > > them.
> > > > > Or build them completely so we can run standalone (and then maybe
> > > people
> > > > > will use it).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM Mujtaba Chohan <mujtaba@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jesse I think you initially worked on Phoenix assembly tar and
> jar
> > > > > > packaging. Any thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <
> ndimiduk@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Quick question:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no
> > Phoenix
> > > > > >> executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for
> > > > > >> applications. Why bother with lib and all this business?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the tgz,
> > our
> > > > > >> current
> > > > > >> means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn
> > > > > >> dependency:list
> > > > > >> shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of which
> > we
> > > > only
> > > > > >> package 38.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So why bother?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Nick
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ***
> > > > > >> $ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep compile |
> > cut
> > > > -d:
> > > > > >> -f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
> > > > > >> 201
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: Assemblies and tgz's
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
What we do is set up version independent symlinks for reference from
elsewhere for installing the server jar or finding the client jar for JDBC (
https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/bigtop-packages/src/common/phoenix/install_phoenix.sh)
. We also replace dependency jars in the Phoenix lib/ with symlinks (
https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/bigtop-packages/src/rpm/phoenix/SPECS/phoenix.spec)
but this part can go away if the Phoenix lib/ goes away. An open question
is what to do with the Phoenix binscripts. We don't do anything with them
but I think launching sqlline etc. out of where Phoenix is installed will
accidentally work. Keep these or remove them?
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Not building a tgz will mess up Bigtop packaging, please don't rip it out
> if it's not critical.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nothing filed; just asking for my own enlightenment. Let me see about
>> putting our tgz's on a diet.
>>
>> Somewhat related: has anyone run make_rc.sh from a mac? It uses command
>> syntax that apparently is not compatible with BSD tools. Should I point it
>> at GNU tools, has anyone tried that?
>>
>> -n
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Sounds like we can rip it out then - did you already file a jira?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:06 PM Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > My understanding is that we already run via standalone uberjar for
>> > > sqlline.py and psql.py ... which may be a bug for folks who have
>> deployed
>> > > on versions of HBase/Hadoop we're not packaging against. The only
>> things
>> > in
>> > > their class path is the HBASE_CONF_DIR and the client assembly jar.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jesse Yates <jy...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I think it was for convenience of packaging. While we have
>> transitive
>> > > > dependencies, they resolve when including the HBase/Hadoop
>> classpaths
>> > as
>> > > > well. I think mostly this was to make it easy to run from the
>> tarball
>> > > using
>> > > > sqline or the various python scripts in the bin/ directory.
>> > > >
>> > > > If no one is using them, then by all means, we should remove
>> building
>> > > them.
>> > > > Or build them completely so we can run standalone (and then maybe
>> > people
>> > > > will use it).
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM Mujtaba Chohan <mu...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Jesse I think you initially worked on Phoenix assembly tar and jar
>> > > > > packaging. Any thoughts?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <
>> ndimiduk@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Quick question:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no
>> Phoenix
>> > > > >> executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for
>> > > > >> applications. Why bother with lib and all this business?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the tgz,
>> our
>> > > > >> current
>> > > > >> means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn
>> > > > >> dependency:list
>> > > > >> shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of which
>> we
>> > > only
>> > > > >> package 38.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> So why bother?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Thanks,
>> > > > >> Nick
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> ***
>> > > > >> $ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep compile |
>> cut
>> > > -d:
>> > > > >> -f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
>> > > > >> 201
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: Assemblies and tgz's
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Not building a tgz will mess up Bigtop packaging, please don't rip it out
if it's not critical.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing filed; just asking for my own enlightenment. Let me see about
> putting our tgz's on a diet.
>
> Somewhat related: has anyone run make_rc.sh from a mac? It uses command
> syntax that apparently is not compatible with BSD tools. Should I point it
> at GNU tools, has anyone tried that?
>
> -n
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like we can rip it out then - did you already file a jira?
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:06 PM Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My understanding is that we already run via standalone uberjar for
> > > sqlline.py and psql.py ... which may be a bug for folks who have
> deployed
> > > on versions of HBase/Hadoop we're not packaging against. The only
> things
> > in
> > > their class path is the HBASE_CONF_DIR and the client assembly jar.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jesse Yates <jy...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think it was for convenience of packaging. While we have transitive
> > > > dependencies, they resolve when including the HBase/Hadoop classpaths
> > as
> > > > well. I think mostly this was to make it easy to run from the tarball
> > > using
> > > > sqline or the various python scripts in the bin/ directory.
> > > >
> > > > If no one is using them, then by all means, we should remove building
> > > them.
> > > > Or build them completely so we can run standalone (and then maybe
> > people
> > > > will use it).
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM Mujtaba Chohan <mu...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jesse I think you initially worked on Phoenix assembly tar and jar
> > > > > packaging. Any thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Quick question:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no
> Phoenix
> > > > >> executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for
> > > > >> applications. Why bother with lib and all this business?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the tgz,
> our
> > > > >> current
> > > > >> means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn
> > > > >> dependency:list
> > > > >> shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of which
> we
> > > only
> > > > >> package 38.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So why bother?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Nick
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ***
> > > > >> $ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep compile |
> cut
> > > -d:
> > > > >> -f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
> > > > >> 201
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: Assemblies and tgz's
Posted by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>.
Nothing filed; just asking for my own enlightenment. Let me see about
putting our tgz's on a diet.
Somewhat related: has anyone run make_rc.sh from a mac? It uses command
syntax that apparently is not compatible with BSD tools. Should I point it
at GNU tools, has anyone tried that?
-n
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sounds like we can rip it out then - did you already file a jira?
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:06 PM Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that we already run via standalone uberjar for
> > sqlline.py and psql.py ... which may be a bug for folks who have deployed
> > on versions of HBase/Hadoop we're not packaging against. The only things
> in
> > their class path is the HBASE_CONF_DIR and the client assembly jar.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jesse Yates <jy...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it was for convenience of packaging. While we have transitive
> > > dependencies, they resolve when including the HBase/Hadoop classpaths
> as
> > > well. I think mostly this was to make it easy to run from the tarball
> > using
> > > sqline or the various python scripts in the bin/ directory.
> > >
> > > If no one is using them, then by all means, we should remove building
> > them.
> > > Or build them completely so we can run standalone (and then maybe
> people
> > > will use it).
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM Mujtaba Chohan <mu...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jesse I think you initially worked on Phoenix assembly tar and jar
> > > > packaging. Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Quick question:
> > > >>
> > > >> Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no Phoenix
> > > >> executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for
> > > >> applications. Why bother with lib and all this business?
> > > >>
> > > >> If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the tgz, our
> > > >> current
> > > >> means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn
> > > >> dependency:list
> > > >> shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of which we
> > only
> > > >> package 38.
> > > >>
> > > >> So why bother?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Nick
> > > >>
> > > >> ***
> > > >> $ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep compile | cut
> > -d:
> > > >> -f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
> > > >> 201
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Assemblies and tgz's
Posted by Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>.
Sounds like we can rip it out then - did you already file a jira?
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:06 PM Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that we already run via standalone uberjar for
> sqlline.py and psql.py ... which may be a bug for folks who have deployed
> on versions of HBase/Hadoop we're not packaging against. The only things in
> their class path is the HBASE_CONF_DIR and the client assembly jar.
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jesse Yates <jy...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think it was for convenience of packaging. While we have transitive
> > dependencies, they resolve when including the HBase/Hadoop classpaths as
> > well. I think mostly this was to make it easy to run from the tarball
> using
> > sqline or the various python scripts in the bin/ directory.
> >
> > If no one is using them, then by all means, we should remove building
> them.
> > Or build them completely so we can run standalone (and then maybe people
> > will use it).
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM Mujtaba Chohan <mu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Jesse I think you initially worked on Phoenix assembly tar and jar
> > > packaging. Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Quick question:
> > >>
> > >> Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no Phoenix
> > >> executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for
> > >> applications. Why bother with lib and all this business?
> > >>
> > >> If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the tgz, our
> > >> current
> > >> means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn
> > >> dependency:list
> > >> shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of which we
> only
> > >> package 38.
> > >>
> > >> So why bother?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Nick
> > >>
> > >> ***
> > >> $ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep compile | cut
> -d:
> > >> -f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
> > >> 201
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Assemblies and tgz's
Posted by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>.
My understanding is that we already run via standalone uberjar for
sqlline.py and psql.py ... which may be a bug for folks who have deployed
on versions of HBase/Hadoop we're not packaging against. The only things in
their class path is the HBASE_CONF_DIR and the client assembly jar.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jesse Yates <jy...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think it was for convenience of packaging. While we have transitive
> dependencies, they resolve when including the HBase/Hadoop classpaths as
> well. I think mostly this was to make it easy to run from the tarball using
> sqline or the various python scripts in the bin/ directory.
>
> If no one is using them, then by all means, we should remove building them.
> Or build them completely so we can run standalone (and then maybe people
> will use it).
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM Mujtaba Chohan <mu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Jesse I think you initially worked on Phoenix assembly tar and jar
> > packaging. Any thoughts?
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Quick question:
> >>
> >> Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no Phoenix
> >> executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for
> >> applications. Why bother with lib and all this business?
> >>
> >> If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the tgz, our
> >> current
> >> means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn
> >> dependency:list
> >> shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of which we only
> >> package 38.
> >>
> >> So why bother?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Nick
> >>
> >> ***
> >> $ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep compile | cut -d:
> >> -f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
> >> 201
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Assemblies and tgz's
Posted by Jesse Yates <jy...@apache.org>.
I think it was for convenience of packaging. While we have transitive
dependencies, they resolve when including the HBase/Hadoop classpaths as
well. I think mostly this was to make it easy to run from the tarball using
sqline or the various python scripts in the bin/ directory.
If no one is using them, then by all means, we should remove building them.
Or build them completely so we can run standalone (and then maybe people
will use it).
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:06 PM Mujtaba Chohan <mu...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jesse I think you initially worked on Phoenix assembly tar and jar
> packaging. Any thoughts?
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Quick question:
>>
>> Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no Phoenix
>> executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for
>> applications. Why bother with lib and all this business?
>>
>> If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the tgz, our
>> current
>> means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn
>> dependency:list
>> shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of which we only
>> package 38.
>>
>> So why bother?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>> ***
>> $ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep compile | cut -d:
>> -f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
>> 201
>>
>
>
Re: Assemblies and tgz's
Posted by Mujtaba Chohan <mu...@apache.org>.
Jesse I think you initially worked on Phoenix assembly tar and jar
packaging. Any thoughts?
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quick question:
>
> Why do we package up our dependencies in the TGZ? There's no Phoenix
> executable, just a fat jar for the RS and a fat client jar for
> applications. Why bother with lib and all this business?
>
> If we are trying to package up all our dependencies in the tgz, our current
> means are inadequate. A little shell gymnastics*** with mvn dependency:list
> shows me 201 total transitive dependencies for Phoenix, of which we only
> package 38.
>
> So why bother?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> ***
> $ mvn dependency:list | egrep '\[INFO\] \w+' | grep compile | cut -d:
> -f1-3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
> 201
>