Bug 212578
| Summary: | [PATCH] textproc/apache-solr5: new port where jdk7 is sufficient | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | ari | ||||||||||||
| Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | Tobias Kortkamp <tobik> | ||||||||||||
| Status: | Closed Overcome By Events | ||||||||||||||
| Severity: | Affects Many People | CC: | mfechner, pi, w.schwarzenfeld | ||||||||||||
| Priority: | --- | Keywords: | patch | ||||||||||||
| Version: | Latest | Flags: | mfechner:
maintainer-feedback+
|
||||||||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||||||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||
Created attachment 174641 [details]
new user/group
I'm also adding a new user/group in order to run Solr at a lower privilege than root.
This overlapped with https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201455. So is this PR still necessary ? Well, yes there is overlap. However there are problems with the other port: 1. The other port has faulty CONFLICTS_INSTALL since it mentioned solr5, but fails to keep solr5 in a separate port. Some users may not want to upgrade solr major releases. 2. I prefer my COPYTREE_SHARE implementation that doesn't litter license files in the install folder. 3. I added options to avoid installed masses of files which 99% of users will not want. 4. I added a solr user to avoid running Solr as root 5. The alternative port /etc/solr.in.sh-dist is interesting, but ultimately sidesteps the usual FreeBSD approach of putting config knobs into rc.conf. I'm not really sure which is better. 6. The other port runs the application from the examples folder. That's not right. Would you consider committing my port as the solr5 implementation and then we can work on merging the implementation to get the best of both? Oh, and I'm not yet ready to upgrade to Java 8, so I need to stay on Java7 just now. Which rules out Solr6 for me just yet. Yes, adding it as solr5 is a good idea. Can you change the submission so that it can be added as solr5 ? Oh, and please use the solr UID/GID that is in the tree now. Thanks! Created attachment 174672 [details]
new solr5 port
I moved this to Solr5. I've never made a new port from scratch, but I think I got it right.
Created attachment 174673 [details]
new solr 5 port
making the previous files obsolete
Created attachment 174674 [details]
new solr 5 port
Sorry, now I uploaded the wrong tar. This is correct now.
Thanks a lot for your work! Please continue so we have the old solr5 in ports to not enforce users to upgrade to version 6. testbuilds@work If no one is interested in taking my ports work into the FreeBSD tree, just close this ticket. Any advance here? Given that it has been over 2 years since anything happened here, I'm closing this per comment #12. |
Created attachment 174640 [details] new solr portfiles I started work to get Solr to start up with a much more flexible startup rc.d script, but this work grew to the point where I rebuilt the entire port. The existing port has multiple problems including just not running since it points to the wrong executable. Notable features: 1. Runs as solr user/group for better security 2. Uses superior Solr startup script which comes as part of the upstream package 3. Doesn't install the running core application in examples folder 4. Separate examples and docs as port options Portlint passes. # portlint looks fine. Poudriere builds, tested with both the options checked and with them unchecked. pkg installed into my production server and runs. Haven't yet put it under load, but I'm doing that this week.