accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher Tubbs (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-2229) Make init.d scripts get into the assembly in a more maveny way
Date Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:43:38 GMT


Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-2229:

{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:
>             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