Hi, Yep, we like to rebuild from source. AFAIK shading dependencies has to do with uber jars. Since we do not use uber jars, can we please have simple jars, since we use a packaging system to do the deployment?
Regards, Olaf > Am 20.04.2016 um 16:24 schrieb Robert Metzger <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > I'm currently looking into the existing pull request for the Flink > integration [1]. > While doing that, I wondered if its a requirement from Bigtop to build > Flink from source when building the rpm / deb packages? > Not building from source would speed up the build a lot and it would ensure > that the binary build is verified by the Flink community (there are some > issues with maven dependency shading when building Flink with maven 3.3.x) > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/bigtop/pull/93/files > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Konstantin, hi Jay, >> >> Thanks for the replies and the prompt progress on the pull request. It >> looks like we will have a Flink RPM package in Bigtop very soon. For >> the remaining integration we can open follow-up pull requests. >> >> If anything comes up while finishing up the work, please ping me! >> >> Cheers, >> Max >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 6:01 PM, jay vyas <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Yup , we're getting there ! I tend to this sometimes in after work hours, >>> I'll call the grad students tonite, and see if they want to make a final >>> push this wknd on it, i can help them. >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Maximilian. >>>> >>>> Indeed. the saga of getting Flink into the Apache Bigdata stack has a >> long >>>> history ;) It's good to see it's finally converges. Your proposal of >>>> breaking >>>> the existing PR in peces certainly makes sense! That's how we prefer to >> do >>>> things as well - smaller changes are easier to check, fix, and even >> revert >>>> if >>>> needed. >>>> >>>> Another thing: we normally would expect to have a single commit for >> JIRA, >>>> so >>>> it would make sense to squash (rebase) the existing PR into smaller >> number >>>> of >>>> commits. Otherwise, it is pretty hard to navigate through all of them. >>>> >>>> Please don't hesitate to ping the list shall you need any assistance. >>>> Regards, >>>> Cos >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:25AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'm an Apache Flink committer and I'd be very happy to see Flink enter >>>>> Bigtop. We have seen quite some interest in Bigtop in the Flink >>>>> community. I've been checking out Bhupendra Singh's pull request which >>>>> followed this thread: https://github.com/apache/bigtop/pull/93 >>>>> >>>>> The packaging of Flink remains one of the biggest hurdles for people >>>>> who want to install and run Flink on a cluster. Thus, that was my main >>>>> focus when reviewing the PR. Apart from a few issues I found, the pull >>>>> request looks good. It would be great if we could bring it into a >>>>> mergeable state. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if it makes sense to break this pull request into several >>>>> pull requests? For example, one for the packaging, one for the puppet >>>>> scripts, and another one for the smoke tests. That could make >>>>> reviewing of the changes easier and people could already try out >>>>> incremental changes. I'd be happy to help out with the packaging and >>>>> scripting. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think about that? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Max >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> jay vyas >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
