+1 what Olaf said! We already see monstrosities that Spark builds and provides
(close to 400MB binary blobs) or Zeppelin, which goes over half a gig (sic!) 

We are producing the stack for very exact specifications, so can afford
removing a bunch of redistributed bits and pieces, as well to avoid the
shading nonsense. Build time is a very small price to pay to get clean
deployment.

Cos

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:16PM, Olaf Flebbe wrote:
> 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
> >> 
> 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to