On 11/07/2013 02:29 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Ivan Afonichev <ivan.afonichev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So what is the decision of community?
Hi,
I've taken a look at the hadoop spec, and builded the httpfs
sub-package. It is packaged as a classic all-in-one-dir "catalina
base". I believe this goes against the guidelines [1] which state that
"Fedora packages must follow the FHS".
The packaging is following the FHS guidelines and putting all files in
the correct locations and symlinking. The tomcat package does this as
well (look at /usr/share/tomcat).
Is it good to have some /usr/share/*/bin/*.sh files?
It is not needed for tomcat package itself but some, not so systemd'ed,
stuff like hadoop's httpfs may be happy to use it.
As I understand it, we cannot follow hadoop upstream's packaging just
like the tomcat package doesn't. Also a "standard" java WAR (unpacked
here) contains its JARs in its WEB-INF/lib directory, which seems to
also go against java packaging guidelines [2]. It states that "All
architecture-independent JAR files MUST go into %{_javadir} or [...]
%{_javadir}-*".
The unpackaged WAR has it's jars replaced with symlinks and tomcat is
told to follow symlinks for that service.
Should we package original upstream catalina.sh or we should create some
"service tomcat $@" emulation of it?
There actually is a systemd service [3] in the tomcat package. And
hadoop has a similar service [4], the difference is that tomcat
doesn't stick to upstream's scripts because the guidelines don't allow
to work the way they work.
The systemd script that is written for httpfs seems to work just fine
and afaik is following Fedora's guidelines.
Rob
--
java-devel mailing list
java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
