[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-722?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13503255#comment-13503255
]
Abhijeet Gaikwad commented on SQOOP-722:
----------------------------------------
Second suggestion is a go ahead.
For the first, I feel source and binary packages should be different. When a user wants to
pack only source, binary is an unnecessary attachment. Similarly, when a user or more specifically
RM creates a binary package, source will be packed per hadoop profile - which doesn't just
seem right, provided source is hadoop profile independent. Let me know your views. If my understanding
is correct, its a -1.
> Improve Sqoop 2 packaging
> -------------------------
>
> Key: SQOOP-722
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-722
> Project: Sqoop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0
> Reporter: Jarek Jarcec Cecho
> Assignee: Jarek Jarcec Cecho
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: bugSQOOP-722.patch
>
>
> I would like to propose two improvements to current building (dist module):
> * Build both source and binary artifacts at the same time. As as I understand a lot of
other projects are doing that as well and it seems more friendly than creating one package
at the time.
> * Encode hadoop profile into binary artifact name. I believe that we should encode for
which Hadoop version is given binary artifact suitable. I know that only two jars are actually
"hadoop specific" whereas the others will work across all hadoop distributions, but I believe
that it will be more user friendly.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
|