-Re: Packaging build dependencies
Giridharan Kesavan 2012-11-05, 05:33
How are we planning to deal with snappy and other libs?
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> not sure about the right answer to this. but you'll need protoc as well,
> On Nov 4, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi!
> > right now I'm faced with the boring problem of updating the
> > toolchain and build slaves for the Bigtop 0.5.0 release. This
> > time I decided to do it right and look at:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BIGTOP-601
> > Given that at this point the content of this proposed bigtop-build
> > package is going to be limited to ant, maven and forrest I'm
> > wondering whether it wouldn't be nicer if packaged those 3
> > as bigtop-ant, bigtop-maven and bigtop-forrest respectively
> > and had an honest build dependencies on them in our
> > SPEC/control files.
> > We can go even so far as to make sure that we track which
> > of our supported platforms package that stuff natively
> > and have the proper dependencies in place (if possible).
> > I guess my biggest question is this -- on platforms where
> > we would still have to have bigtop-[maven|ant|forrest]
> > as a formal build dependency -- will this upset anything?
> > Thoughts?
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> > P.S. This doesn't touch upon an issue of packaging JDK.
> > At the moment -- I'm not solving it with the hopes that
> > we can simply transition to OpenJDK 7 at some point
> > (which seems to be available on most new platforms).