hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: Maven assembly speed issue (from discussion with jdcryans on IRC)
Date Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:38:32 GMT
Yeah, only the bin.tar.gz was produced.
St.Ack

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:28 PM,  <psmith@aconex.com> wrote:
> Did assembly:directory not keep the directory? Or are you saying the other 2
> archives were not produced (this being because we removed the 2 descriptor
> refs)
>
>
>
> On 16/03/2010, at 7:56, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> I tried beta2.  It only assembled the bin.tar.gz.  The beta3 did same.
>> For now I just put back beta5 since it works (if slow).
>>
>> Thanks Paul,
>> St.Ack
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Paul Smith <psmith@aconex.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ahhh, sorry guys!
>>>
>>> umm, I think we'll have to find a sweet spot between beta-1 and beta-5.
>>>
>>> From the assembly plugin docs:
>>>
>>> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/assembly.html
>>> (binaries section)
>>>
>>> outputFileNameMapping   Sets the mapping pattern for all NON-UNPACKED
>>> dependencies included in this assembly. Default is
>>> ${module.artifactId}-${module.version}${dashClassifier?}.${module.extension}.
>>> (Since 2.2-beta-2; 2.2-beta-1 uses
>>> ${artifactId}-${version}${dashClassifier?}.${extension}) NOTE: If the
>>> dependencySet specifies unpack == true, outputFileNameMapping WILL NOT BE
>>> USED; in these cases, use outputDirectory. The default value is
>>> ${module.artifactId}-${module.version}${dashClassifier?}.${module.extension}.
>>>
>>>
>>> so maybe try beta-2.. ?
>>>
>>> my apologise.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 15/03/2010, at 5:41 AM, Alexey Kovyrin wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've tried to build the trunk a few minutes ago (after pulling those
>>>> changes in assembly plugin) and I've noticed a few problems:
>>>>
>>>> 1) here is how the target dir looks after mvn package
>>>> assembly:directory, this feels wrong: http://gist.github.com/332129
>>>> 2) ./bin/hbase is completely broken because of the change in the
>>>> target directory name (.dir suffix)
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I committed the change.  Its much faster.  Thanks lads.
>>>>> St.Ack
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:34 PM,  <psmith@aconex.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep i would downgrade to beta-1 in the pluginmanagement section it's
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> faster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/03/2010, at 14:35, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did this bit of the patch:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -308,10 +309,6 @@
>>>>>>>       <descriptors>
>>>>>>>         <descriptor>src/assembly/bin.xml</descriptor>
>>>>>>>       </descriptors>
>>>>>>> -          <descriptorRefs>
>>>>>>> -            <descriptorRef>src</descriptorRef>
>>>>>>> -            <descriptorRef>project</descriptorRef>
>>>>>>> -          </descriptorRefs>
>>>>>>>     </configuration>
>>>>>>>   </plugin>
>>>>>>>  </plugins>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... but as Lars says, there is a version up in the pluginManagement
>>>>>>> section.  Should I downgrade from beta5 to beta1?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks lads,
>>>>>>> St>Ack
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Lars Francke
>>>>>>> <lars.francke@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because the current pom doesn't specify a plugin version,
it's
>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>> latest version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The pluginManagement section actually does specify a plugin
version:
>>>>>>>> 2.2-beta-5. But if that does cause problems - and the ticket
you
>>>>>>>> linked to proves that feel free to downgrade but I would
appreciate
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> if you did it in the pluginManagement section. I don't have
access
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the source code right now so I can't provide an updated patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm swamped right now but I plan to continue working on the
Maven
>>>>>>>> build as well once everything has settled down. Thanks for
keeping
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>> the good work on this Paul!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Lars
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Return-Path:
>>>>>>> hbase-dev-return-18272-psmith=aconex.com@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>>> Received: from gatekeeper.aconex.com (LHLO gatekeeper.aconex.com)
>>>>>>> (192.168.102.10) by mail-au.aconex.com with LMTP; Sun, 14 Mar
2010
>>>>>>> 14:35:27
>>>>>>> +1100 (EST)
>>>>>>> Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
>>>>>>>  by gatekeeper.aconex.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ECCE4884AB
>>>>>>>  for <psmith@aconex.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:27 +1100
(EST)
>>>>>>> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at aconex.com
>>>>>>> Received: from gatekeeper.aconex.com ([127.0.0.1])
>>>>>>>  by localhost (gatekeeper.aconex.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port
>>>>>>> 10024)
>>>>>>>  with ESMTP id km2MgDbjPJTS for <psmith@aconex.com>;
>>>>>>>  Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:23 +1100 (EST)
>>>>>>> Received: from postoffice2.aconex.com (cuda.yarra.acx
>>>>>>> [192.168.102.2])
>>>>>>>  by gatekeeper.aconex.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC0B4884A0
>>>>>>>  for <psmith@aconex.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:23 +1100
(EST)
>>>>>>> X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1268537722-21ea001d0000-Y2sTMG
>>>>>>> X-Barracuda-URL: http://postoffice2.aconex.com:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi
>>>>>>> Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
>>>>>>>  by postoffice2.aconex.com (Spam & Virus Firewall) with
ESMTP id
>>>>>>> A54D865A545
>>>>>>>  for <psmith@aconex.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:22 +1100
(EST)
>>>>>>> Received: from postoffice.aconex.com (postoffice.yarra.acx
>>>>>>> [192.168.102.1]) by postoffice2.aconex.com with ESMTP id
>>>>>>> rYMmYXVfAMBHWHz8
>>>>>>> for <psmith@aconex.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:22 +1100
(EST)
>>>>>>> X-Barracuda-Envelope-From:
>>>>>>> hbase-dev-return-18272-psmith=aconex.com@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>>> Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
>>>>>>>  by postoffice.aconex.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B0B5BA50280
>>>>>>>  for <psmith@aconex.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:32:37 +1100
(EST)
>>>>>>> Received: (qmail 28038 invoked by uid 500); 14 Mar 2010 03:35:20
>>>>>>> -0000
>>>>>>> Mailing-List: contact hbase-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by
ezmlm
>>>>>>> Precedence: bulk
>>>>>>> List-Help: <mailto:hbase-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org>
>>>>>>> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:hbase-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org>
>>>>>>> List-Post: <mailto:hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
>>>>>>> List-Id: <hbase-dev.hadoop.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>>> Delivered-To: mailing list hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>>> Received: (qmail 28030 invoked by uid 99); 14 Mar 2010 03:35:20
-0000
>>>>>>> Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org)
>>>>>>> (140.211.11.136)
>>>>>>>  by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:35:20
>>>>>>> +0000
>>>>>>> X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
>>>>>>> X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
>>>>>>> Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of saint.ack@gmail.com
>>>>>>> designates 209.85.217.225 as permitted sender)
>>>>>>> Received: from [209.85.217.225] (HELO mail-gx0-f225.google.com)
>>>>>>> (209.85.217.225)
>>>>>>>  by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:35:19
>>>>>>> +0000
>>>>>>> Received: by gxk25 with SMTP id 25so1054366gxk.11
>>>>>>>      for <hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org>; Sat, 13 Mar
2010 19:34:58
>>>>>>> -0800
>>>>>>> (PST)
>>>>>>> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
>>>>>>>      d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
>>>>>>>      h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to
>>>>>>>       :content-type;
>>>>>>>      bh=2XJuE3DRSu1PZi6mitn5hB/CWqgf8oZZg8Cq7kmSssE=;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  b=RZFvxOjcosPp1kKzR3S2IRyF3s6U3RShvv32DKopAtC3RpA7y1jvGLXadoM96FJI0Z
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  YOxb2Yowwa4zIHn4mz3A8aj8TxvnefJ6Obu6uTWhOan1qgSI2KSIZQjKbQN9QyDsVSo0
>
>
>>>>>>>       Z5lgnd67OEHNbQIGwY2x2amNg9t13BtblmtlY=
>>>>>>> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
>>>>>>>      d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
>>>>>>>      h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
>>>>>>>       :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  b=ohJ64CZsLYoxZXEC223B1Yjf039FwFNukpuGNPm7MSIp+GGT+SteBG2+DdAaTCQ7L7
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  VKVtv6tsSxIZCQjjhPmklrA1agRZY6ebfHgD5os7Ob2lZ/AsSJyQwOlCZYgoRLm0L4nB
>>>>>>>       ym72VyxsSZZedzkdFKkccGaQcf6544depe/Ug=
>>>>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>>>>> Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com
>>>>>>> Received: by 10.101.42.12 with SMTP id
>>>>>>> u12mr332581anj.56.1268537698290;
>>>>>>> Sat,
>>>>>>>  13 Mar 2010 19:34:58 -0800 (PST)
>>>>>>> In-Reply-To:
>>>>>>> <fda1bfdd1003121936x6362dea5k3f37c2d4f17a9ed3@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>>> References: <79B274BD-CB9A-4B81-B224-C0A7F85864EF@aconex.com>
>>>>>>>   <fda1bfdd1003121936x6362dea5k3f37c2d4f17a9ed3@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:34:58 -0800
>>>>>>> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2cf34d151e284d55
>>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>>> <7c962aed1003131934h7b03a75cs85ffbb164ff487fd@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>>> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Maven assembly speed issue (from discussion
with
>>>>>>> jdcryans on IRC)
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Maven assembly speed issue (from discussion with
>>>>>>> jdcryans on
>>>>>>> IRC)
>>>>>>> From: Stack <stack@duboce.net>
>>>>>>> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>>>>> X-Barracuda-Connect: postoffice.yarra.acx[192.168.102.1]
>>>>>>> X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1268537722
>>>>>>> X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210
>>>>>>> X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Aconex Staff Email Spam Firewall
at
>>>>>>> aconex.com
>>>>>>> X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02
>>>>>>> X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using global scores
of
>>>>>>> TAG_LEVEL=3.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=5.0 KILL_LEVEL=6.0 tests=
>>>>>>> X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.24799
>>>>>>>  Rule breakdown below
>>>>>>>   pts rule name              description
>>>>>>>  ---- ----------------------
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did this bit of the patch:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -308,10 +309,6 @@
>>>>>>>       <descriptors>
>>>>>>>         <descriptor>src/assembly/bin.xml</descriptor>
>>>>>>>       </descriptors>
>>>>>>> -          <descriptorRefs>
>>>>>>> -            <descriptorRef>src</descriptorRef>
>>>>>>> -            <descriptorRef>project</descriptorRef>
>>>>>>> -          </descriptorRefs>
>>>>>>>     </configuration>
>>>>>>>   </plugin>
>>>>>>>  </plugins>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... but as Lars says, there is a version up in the pluginManagement
>>>>>>> section.  Should I downgrade from beta5 to beta1?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks lads,
>>>>>>> St>Ack
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Lars Francke
>>>>>>> <lars.francke@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because the current pom doesn't specify a plugin version,
it's
>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>> latest version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The pluginManagement section actually does specify a plugin
version:
>>>>>>>> 2.2-beta-5. But if that does cause problems - and the ticket
you
>>>>>>>> linked to proves that feel free to downgrade but I would
appreciate
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> if you did it in the pluginManagement section. I don't have
access
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the source code right now so I can't provide an updated patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm swamped right now but I plan to continue working on the
Maven
>>>>>>>> build as well once everything has settled down. Thanks for
keeping
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>> the good work on this Paul!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Lars
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alexey Kovyrin
>>>> http://kovyrin.net/
>>>
>>>
>

Mime
View raw message