mahout-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Drew Farris <drew.far...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: download mahout-0.2 release
Date Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:34:09 GMT
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think that there is a significant advantage to having a small source
> download.
>

+1 here. I don't feel that svn access to the sources is sufficient.


>    - source plus jars
>
>    - binary
>

I'm not certain that we need both binary and source plus jars, but that
might be my misunderstanding of the difference between the two. Assuming
that binary is a subset of source plus jars (without sources), I'd vote for
a source plus jars alternative and be done with it. I doubt that the source
would add so much size to the distribution as to cause problems.

Also, I have some question about the second option due largely to my maven
> inexperience.  Is there an easy way to tell maven that jars *might( be
> present locally and that it doesn't need to download them?


Minimally it would require the user to run 'mvn install' from the source
plus jars distribution to get the jars installed in their local maven
repository. I think the real power of a distribution that includes jars is
for people who don't want to scale the maven learning curve and/or quickly
and easily get into running the examples.

It would seem
> really a bad idea to have to change the pom for different distributions.
>

Agreed.

Strangely enough, as it is, the .job file is darn close to a binary
distribution, but isn't necessarily user-friendly as such.

Drew

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message