+1 for zeppelin-bin-min release package What I would suggest is that for a specific package of Zeppelin with XXX interpreter(s) built-in is that the maintainers/contributors of each interpreter(s) can help releasing those "custom" builds for the community. Any thought on this idea ?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Partridge, Lucas (GE Aviation) < lucas.partri...@ge.com> wrote: > I like the 'zeppelin-bin-netinst’ idea too. Hopefully it would be easy to > configure it to work with a proxy for users behind a corporate firewall. > > Thanks, Lucas. > > > > *From:* Mohit Jaggi [mailto:mohitja...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 17 June 2016 18:06 > *To:* users@zeppelin.apache.org > *Subject:* EXT: Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package > > > > sure…that is possible. one can also make a build from source and customize > as needed. but not having to do that makes things easier. i do believe that > for the vast majority of cases a minimal build with spark (and possibly > other small items like shell, jdbc, python) will be quite valuable, imho. > > is there a lot of overhead involved in having multiple binaries available? > i am happy to volunteer some time to help with this if needed. > > > > On Jun 17, 2016, at 9:45 PM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > In case of no internet access, how about > > > > a. download 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' and run 'bin/install-interpreter.sh', > and then copy the package to production env. > > b. download 'zeppelin-bin-all' and copy the package to production env. > > > > ? > > > > Thanks, > > moon > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:10 AM Mohit Jaggi <mohitja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Many production environments have no internet access. A script like this > can be useful to some but it should not replace the proposed min binary. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 17, 2016, at 9:20 PM, moon soo Lee <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for bringing this discussion. > > it's great idea minimize binary package size. > > > > Can we set a policy to decide which interpreter goes to > 'zeppelin-bin-min', which is not? > > > > One alternative is, instead of making 'zeppelin-bin-min', we can make > 'zeppelin-bin-netinst'. > > We can provide a shell script such as, 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' and > the script will download interpreters and their dependencies from maven > repository and store under /interpreter dir. By > leveraging DependencyResolver[1], i think we can make this feature in > couple of hours. > > > > Only spark interpreter can not be installed in simple way, while it > requires some python and R packages under /interpreter dir and they're not > available on maven repository, so it'll need special treatment, but all > other interpreters can be installed in the simple way. > > > > Then, 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' version can have minimal package size, and > still gives easy way to install all the interpreters. > > Also 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' will still useful even if we have > dynamic interpreter loading feature [2], to build offline package. > > > > what do you think? > > > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/zeppelin-interpreter/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/dep/DependencyResolver.java > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_zeppelin_blob_master_zeppelin-2Dinterpreter_src_main_java_org_apache_zeppelin_dep_DependencyResolver.java&d=CwMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=c1CCNND4PG-Q_V2AJWDWrugZAXQ8Y3EE_f_mAHcpXcs&m=5yX9TVM8vp2oYgFtB4gACTyCQL3FWTK2OoSXVzsJpdg&s=b48EeMu0glDkXuGn72ZTy8ZteEiVBzmpbTqELmhgsRc&e=> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-598 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_browse_ZEPPELIN-2D598&d=CwMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=c1CCNND4PG-Q_V2AJWDWrugZAXQ8Y3EE_f_mAHcpXcs&m=5yX9TVM8vp2oYgFtB4gACTyCQL3FWTK2OoSXVzsJpdg&s=MK9lpcZjSIlgFO0CVk6kMWB1bCPqpWK_0qhSjOQ5FzA&e=> > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:02 AM mina lee <mina...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi all! > > > > Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release candidate > I want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged. > > > > For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which > includes all interpreters. > > The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package size > will be quite big(~600MB). > > So I am planning to provide two binary packages: > > - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters) > > - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters) > > > > I am thinking about putting *spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc, > shell, markdown, angular* in minimized package. > > Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of > them are ok to be excluded? > > > > Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0 > but also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized > package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are > not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter > feature [1] which is in progress under [2]. > > > > Thanks, > > Mina > > > > [1] > http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__zeppelin.apache.org_docs_0.6.0-2DSNAPSHOT_manual_dynamicinterpreterload.html&d=CwMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=c1CCNND4PG-Q_V2AJWDWrugZAXQ8Y3EE_f_mAHcpXcs&m=5yX9TVM8vp2oYgFtB4gACTyCQL3FWTK2OoSXVzsJpdg&s=4zHncvKGMfOlq-dTmD3m23Rv0jjkaqwWEnowkaJSHks&e=> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_zeppelin_pull_908&d=CwMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=c1CCNND4PG-Q_V2AJWDWrugZAXQ8Y3EE_f_mAHcpXcs&m=5yX9TVM8vp2oYgFtB4gACTyCQL3FWTK2OoSXVzsJpdg&s=TB3EaiWKtliKYXmXWHJLyZK4Kti6Ev97GVBJFfhCcVw&e=> > > >
