On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Robert Rati <rrati@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Here's a listing of the directory structure hadoop and similar bits produce > in their builds: > > http://paste.fedoraproject.org/48849/13825327 Looks like tomcat is bundled, which itself is an issue. > There's a some stuff in there that's can obviously be paired down. Here's > the script used to start/stop the service: > > http://paste.fedoraproject.org/48852/38253290 This whole script could be replaced by a in-house script just like /usr/sbin/tomcat, and it should be fairly easy. A few things I've spotted: - PRG=$(readlink -f $0) could replace the whole while loop line 19 It's not portable, but we don't care since it'd work on Fedora - The so-called bug mentioned line 51 is actually documented [1] in catalina.sh It works like this by design, I'll notify upstream > It should be noted that upstream hadoop, and its ecosystem, use tomcat 6.x > and as part of packaging it we've moved forward to tomcat 7.x. Unless hadoop's code uses tomcat internals (a valve for instance) this should not be a problem. I don't have time right now do check that. Dridi [1] https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/d88ad9e/bin/catalina.sh#L36 > Rob > > > On 10/22/2013 12:27 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: >> >> I've installed tomcat 7 on my machine to take a quick look at how it's >> packaged: >> - exploded FHS-compliant layout >> - systemd-friendly equivalent to catalina.sh >> - default configuration in /etc >> >> Now if you want to run a tomcat instance (by instance I mean >> $CATALINA_BASE) /usr/sbin/tomcat seems to be the best candidate. >> Unlike catalina.sh, it expects a value for all the CATALINA_* variables >> in its environment, while catalina.sh has fall-backs relative to >> $CATALINA_HOME. Simply using /usr/sbin/tomcat as a substitute to >> catalina.sh wouldn't work of course. >> >> Could you please post an example of what maven produces ? This would >> help see what could be done with simple maven configuration (eg. >> -Dsystem=properties) and what would require a patch (and help estimate >> the amount of work). >> >> Dridi >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Robert Rati <rrati@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> The lack of the tomcat shell scripts is causing issue with hadoop and >>> some >>> of their ecosystem packages. Some are webapps with custom configuration. >>> The maven builds all create a tomcat install area with their custom >>> configurations. It's not too hard to take that and adapt to fedora's >>> tomcat >>> if the schell scripts were packaged. Then these services could be >>> stopped/started with systemd like other services. >>> >>> That's assuming catalina.sh and friends are present and functional. :) >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> On 10/21/2013 04:42 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> The catalina.sh script work with the $CATALINA_HOME (tomcat binaries) >>>> and $CATALINA_BASE (tomcat instances) directories. My guess is that >>>> tomcat is packaged as a native (previously sysvinit, and now systemd) >>>> service, and that instances wouldn't make sense. Other scripts like >>>> startup.sh are just sugar wrappers to the catalina.sh script. >>>> >>>> When I say it wouldn't make sense, I mean that it was probably >>>> packaged to feel like any other server: >>>> sudo service tomcat start >>>> or >>>> sudo systemctl start tomcat >>>> >>>> The package probably owns directories in /var (or somewhere else) that >>>> would make it multi-instance unfriendly. >>>> >>>> The catalina.sh script also expects sub-directories in $CATALINA_HOME >>>> and $CATALINA_BASE. I suspect that tomcat explodes the directory >>>> layout (in /usr, /var, maybe /etc) in order to be FHS compliant, which >>>> would probably break catalina.sh and its friends. >>>> >>>> I'll install tomcat and take a look at the package ASAP. >>>> >>>> Dridi >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Robert Rati <rrati@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I logged a bz (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990588) to >>>>> request that the tomcat shell scripts (catalina.sh and the rest) be >>>>> packaged. I've had some discussions with the person the bz is assigned >>>>> to >>>>> and few others, but no one knows why the scripts were not packaged. >>>>> Nor, >>>>> it >>>>> seems, does anyone see a problem with them being packaged as far as I >>>>> can >>>>> tell. >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone know some history here? >>>>> >>>>> Rob >>>>> -- >>>>> java-devel mailing list >>>>> java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel -- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
