Re: flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-14 Thread Nick Dimiduk
Just to confirm, building with maven 3.2.5 appears to work as expected. Thanks a lot for the work-around. On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Robert Metzger wrote: > You are right. I'll post the link with my next message on the maven user > list. > Here is the link to the maven discussion: > > htt

Re: flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-10 Thread Robert Metzger
You are right. I'll post the link with my next message on the maven user list. Here is the link to the maven discussion: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-users/201512.mbox/%3CCAGr9p8CdMJL0sdbewgZ5WqJ0_4OWCox-mw00T7Vn3KDxz9PjtA%40mail.gmail.com%3E His last answer says that Maven 3.2's

Re: flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-10 Thread Nick Dimiduk
Lol. Okay, thanks a bunch. Mind linking back here with your discussion thread on the maven list? This will be of interest to other projects as well. On Thursday, December 10, 2015, Robert Metzger wrote: > I further looked into the issue. I have the strong feeling its a bug in > Maven .. or at le

Re: flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-10 Thread Robert Metzger
I further looked into the issue. I have the strong feeling its a bug in Maven .. or at least a change in its behavior. The build with maven 3.2.5 is correct, with 3.3.9, the first build is incorrect, the second build of "flink-dist" only. This is the issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FL

Re: flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-09 Thread Nick Dimiduk
Thanks, I appreciate it. On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Robert Metzger wrote: > I can confirm that guava is part of the fat jar for the 2.7.0, scala 2.11 > distribution. > > I'll look into the issue tomorrow > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > > > mvn dependency:tree fro

Re: flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-09 Thread Robert Metzger
I can confirm that guava is part of the fat jar for the 2.7.0, scala 2.11 distribution. I'll look into the issue tomorrow On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > mvn dependency:tree from flink-dist module does not include any mention of > guava. When I build (mvn clean package -Ds

Re: flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-09 Thread Nick Dimiduk
mvn dependency:tree from flink-dist module does not include any mention of guava. When I build (mvn clean package -DskipTests) vs master (fc8be1c) I see the same packaging problem. On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Stephan Ewen wrote: > Usually, no command line magic is needed. Simple "mvn clean p

Re: flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-09 Thread Stephan Ewen
Usually, no command line magic is needed. Simple "mvn clean package" does it. May be that this is not related to your building at all. Can you check whether the same is already the case on the master branch with Hadoop 2.7 Scala 2.11 ? Also, simple way to diagnose where these dependencies come fr

Re: flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-09 Thread Nick Dimiduk
I did not. All I did was apply the PR from FLINK-3147. I thought perhaps there's some command line incantation I'm missing. On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Stephan Ewen wrote: > Hi! > > Did you change anything in the POM files, with respect to Guava, or add > another dependency that might transi

Re: flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-09 Thread Stephan Ewen
Hi! Did you change anything in the POM files, with respect to Guava, or add another dependency that might transitively pull Guava? Stephan On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > Hi there, > > I'm attempting to build locally a flink based on release-0.10.0 + > FLINK-3147. When I

flink-dist packaging including unshaded classes

2015-12-08 Thread Nick Dimiduk
Hi there, I'm attempting to build locally a flink based on release-0.10.0 + FLINK-3147. When I build from this sandbox, the resulting flink-dist.jar contains both shanded and unshaded jars. In my case, this results in a runtime conflict in my application, where com.google.common.base.Stopwatch fro