Thanks Robert.
(It seems that I have always used linux distributions that include zip
command...)

I did a rough calculation - If we provide both of TGZ and ZIP for
Luke, we'll add extra 44M + 44M = 88M bytes per our release on the
storage server (the package is just a collection of jars, so their
compression ratio seems to be very low in this case).

Tomoko

2021年5月29日(土) 21:21 Robert Muir <[email protected]>:
>
> Just like *nux can't handle .zip by default.
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 7:26 AM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > Nö. Not by default.
> >
> > But: why not provide only zip? You can also add Unix chmod inside zip.
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> > Am May 29, 2021 10:27:12 AM UTC schrieb Robert Muir <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >> That scheme sounds fine to me. It is 2021, can windows deal with .tar.gz 
> >> yet? :)
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 6:12 AM Tomoko Uchida
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  Thank you Robert for your reply.
> >>>  For clarification, I think we will distribute a compressed tarball
> >>>  (and may be also a zip for Windows?) which contains luke JAR (the GUI)
> >>>  and its dependent JARs - not a fat or shaded jar. (I forgot to write
> >>>  the important details in the previous mail.)
> >>>
> >>>  Tomoko
> >>>
> >>>  2021年5月29日(土) 12:37 Robert Muir <[email protected]>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  +1, it is an application. So let's package it in a way, so that it is
> >>>>  easy to run this application.
> >>>>  This is a bit different than packaging a library: different target
> >>>>  audience for example (developers vs. operations and other folks)
> >>>>
> >>>>  Definitely +1 to give luke its own "artifact" that might work a bit
> >>>>  differently than the usual library artifacts. The most extreme might
> >>>>  be a kind of shaded application jar, very friendly to the common case,
> >>>>  but perhaps most hostile to expert cases (such as adding custom
> >>>>  analyzers and codecs to classpath). Maybe it's the right tradeoff
> >>>>  though, or something in between: seems like we can sort out those
> >>>>  details.
> >>>>
> >>>>  On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:10 PM Tomoko Uchida
> >>>>  <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  As a byproduct of LUCENE-9448, we now have a neat gradle task (thank
> >>>>>  you Dawid!) to assemble a standalone Luke package.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  I think it makes sense to distribute the standalone "Luke app" that
> >>>>>  contains only its executable-jar and minimum dependencies to run it,
> >>>>>  as it used to be, on Lucene download page (
> >>>>>  https://lucene.apache.org/core/downloads.html ).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  Pros:
> >>>>>  - Easy to understand for users who need it
> >>>>>  - No need to rely on strange hacks to discover dependencies (jars) for
> >>>>>  running it
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  Cons:
> >>>>>  - Duplication of many jars (analyzers, queries, codec, etc.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  I am sure it makes sense for long-term Luke users who used to just
> >>>>>  download Luke from the original or forked sites - but let me know if
> >>>>>  there is anyone who has thoughts (eg. from the aritifact maintainers'
> >>>>>  perspective) on it.
> >>>>>  If there is no objection/concern, I will explore what changes are
> >>>>>  required to do so on LUCENE-9978.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  Final note: It doesn't affect ongoing 9.0 release. With the assemble
> >>>>>  task, Luke works just fine as before.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  Thanks,
> >>>>>  Tomoko
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>>>  For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>>  For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>  For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>>
> >> ________________________________
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Uwe Schindler
> > Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> > https://www.thetaphi.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to