nutch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lewis John Mcgibbney <lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: VOTE Apache Nutch 2.0 RC1
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:02:39 GMT
This is what is currently done and what I was essentially proposing.

I really don't know about the size of the bin artifact if we enable all
gora-* dependencies before packaging it for distribution... thanks to input
from yourselves we recently sorted out some size issues with 1.5, it would
be good to to have 2.0 shadow this.

I am +1 for shipping just src distributions for 2.0, this would keep the
default (gora-sql 0.1.1-incubating) ivy configuration.

If users can't do 'ant runtime' then you kinda got to wonder how they're
using Nutch at all...

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Julien Nioche <
lists.digitalpebble@gmail.com> wrote:

> yep, remember that you can't build from the bin package so inevitably
> someone will wonder why only such or such backend is available etc...
>
> another option is to NOT have a binary release at all, in which case it is
> acceptable I think not to include the deps in ivy. Maybe we should at least
> add them but comment them out
>
> Ju
>
>
> On 14 June 2012 21:51, Lewis John Mcgibbney <lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Julien,
>>
>> Do you suggest with the binary release that we simply open up all gora-*
>> deps and ship it with every jar available?
>>
>> Lewis
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Julien Nioche <
>> lists.digitalpebble@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. You'd expect a binary release to work out of the box - which
>>> is not the case. Plus we'd have to spend more time explaining the
>>> workaround, answering the same questions over and over on the ML etc...
>>> Fixing this should not be a big deal (i.e. add the gore-x modules for the
>>> backends to the ivy deps file).
>>>
>>> Julien
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 June 2012 20:27, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
>>> chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Guys,
>>>>
>>>> I think the annoyance is probably something folks can live with as they
>>>> have been
>>>> waiting for an "official" release of 2.x for years :)
>>>>
>>>> My +1 to roll RC #2 with or without a solution to this and mark it as a
>>>> TODO. "release
>>>> eary", "release often" :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Aye this is no good at all. Depending on which backend you wish to
>>>> use with Gora, you will need to go and manually fetch the correct .jar's
>>>> from maven central.
>>>> >
>>>> > Does anyone else have either solution or a workaround before I push
>>>> RC2 with just src dists?
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> >
>>>> > Lewis
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Sebastian Nagel <
>>>> wastl.nagel@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> > > We only supply src distributions...
>>>> > > Does this principle apply to Nutch 2 as well?
>>>> > Maybe, yes.
>>>> > The situation with the current binary package is uncomfortable:
>>>> > I had to copy/link gora-hbase and hbase jars into lib/ to get nutch
>>>> running.
>>>> >
>>>> > 2012/6/13 Lewis John Mcgibbney <lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com>
>>>> > Hi Guys,
>>>> >
>>>> > Whilst updating the Nutch2Tutorial I got thinking that within Gora we
>>>> don't supply binary distributions of the code, this is because when using
>>>> Gora a user may wish/require to recompile the code to accomodate config
>>>> changes etc. We only supply src distributions...
>>>> >
>>>> > Does this principle apply to Nutch 2 as well? I mean, what if your
>>>> using the gora-sql dependency, then you wish to switch to HBase and
>>>> recompile, is this possible within the binary distribution?
>>>> >
>>>> > Best
>>>> >
>>>> > Lewis
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Julien Nioche <
>>>> lists.digitalpebble@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Ferdy
>>>> >
>>>> > The Nutch job jar is not present in the binary archive. This means
>>>> distributed running of jobs is not supported. I'm not sure if this is a
>>>> problem (since users can always build one themselves), merely pointing it
>>>> out. The recently released 1.5 also lacks this job jar, so at least no
>>>> difference there.
>>>> >
>>>> > The binary distrib corresponds to runtime/local and as such should
>>>> NOT have the job file there. This is now the norm since 1.5
>>>> >
>>>> > Will try and do some testing of the RC
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> >
>>>> > Julien
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>>>> >
>>>> > http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>>>> > http://www.digitalpebble.com
>>>> > http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Lewis
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Lewis
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>>>> Senior Computer Scientist
>>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>>>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>>>> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
>>>> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>>>
>>> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>>> http://www.digitalpebble.com
>>> http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Lewis*
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *
> *Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
> http://www.digitalpebble.com
> http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>
>


-- 
*Lewis*

Mime
View raw message