HBASE-25792 Filter out o.a.hadoop.thirdparty building shaded jars #3184
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
Apache9
reviewed
Apr 20, 2021
hbase-shaded/pom.xml
Outdated
| @@ -553,6 +553,13 @@ | |||
| <exclude>keytab.txt</exclude> | |||
| </excludes> | |||
| </filter> | |||
| <filter> | |||
| <!-- Remove the shaded guava added in hadoop-3.3.1+--> | |||
| <artifact>*:*</artifact> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
remove all hadoop shaded jars always?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK. There is a *:* above, let'st just add one more exclude pattern there?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was following pattern from earlier in this section. As I read it, this says apply the exclude org.apache.hadoop.thirdparty class filter across all included artifacts.
I can try narrowing the selection (probably a good idea).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ndimiduk its not jars, its excluding classes.
I tried doing
-
<!-- Don't include the shaded guava jar added in hadoop-3.3.1+--> -
<artifact>org.apache.hadoop.thirdparty:hadoop-shaded-guava</artifact>
... this don't work... shaded classes sneak through. Let me push a noop change on a few of the modules to trip unit test runs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just saw Duo comment. Let me do his suggestion too...
Need to add to allowed-licenses list too....
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
Rerun tests to see if related (they don't look so) |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
Seems H18 is broken. I marked the node as offline and kicked a new build. |
jojochuang
reviewed
Apr 22, 2021
| @@ -1343,7 +1343,7 @@ You can redistribute it and/or modify it under either the terms of the | |||
| ## See this FAQ link for justifications: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html | |||
| ## | |||
| ## NB: This list is later compared as lower-case. New entries must also be all lower-case | |||
| #set($non_aggregate_fine = [ 'public domain', 'new bsd license', 'bsd license', 'bsd', 'bsd 2-clause license', 'mozilla public license version 1.1', 'mozilla public license version 2.0', 'creative commons attribution license, version 2.5' ]) | |||
| #set($non_aggregate_fine = [ 'public domain', 'new bsd license', 'bsd license', 'bsd', 'bsd 2-clause license', 'mozilla public license version 1.1', 'mozilla public license version 2.0', 'creative commons attribution license, version 2.5', 'apache-2.0' ]) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in the past we used hbase-resource-bundle/src/main/resources/supplemental-models.xml file to correct dependency license, like this one https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/1582/files
either way is fine by me.
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
Thanks @Apache9 for excluding h18. Thanks for review @jojochuang . Seems like this patch ok by you as is? I can change it if wanted else need +1 to commit. |
jojochuang
approved these changes
Apr 27, 2021
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's good... spent some time trying to find where we supplied the license text "apache-2.0" in the hadoop-thirdparty but couldn't figure out. I think it makes more sense to accept "apache-2.0" because we'll end up adding more hadoop-thirdparty artifacts and it'll be a pain adding more rules to exclude the future ones.
|
Thanks for taking a look @jojochuang |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Need to add to allowed-licenses list too....