accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Berman (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-2229) Make init.d scripts get into the assembly in a more maveny way
Date Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:21:38 GMT


Michael Berman commented on ACCUMULO-2229:

I don't understand your suggestion.  You're saying, keep them in the modules for their components,
but they can be included in the output package right there?  We don't produce separate packaged
artifacts for each component, do we?

The particular thing I'm suggesting is unmaveny is stuff like this in assemble/src/main/assemblies/component.xml:
{{<directory>../server/tserver/src/main/packaging/etc/init.d</directory>}}.  How
are you proposing we resolve that?  

Or are you just saying that you think the cost of attaching it as an artifact outweighs the
risk of having inter-sibling, filesystem path-based implied dependencies?

> Make init.d scripts get into the assembly in a more maveny way
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-2229
>                 URL:
>             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

View raw message