Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
I question whether the following four steps should be considered a
"tremendous headache", simply because of the fact that one needs to
download a different file than the one already downloaded...

1. Download source tarball
2. Unpack source tarball
3. Navigate to server/src/main/c++
4. Run "make"

... but I can easily add it back in if that's the consensus.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:34 AM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That sounds like a tremendous headache for the users where the pre-built
> native libraries aren't sufficient.
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, you could essentially unpack the source over the binary... for
>> now, anyway... but some things would be slightly different. Like the
>> addition of the proxy/thrift directory for the generated thrift
>> bindings pulled out of proxy/target/. But... I really don't think it
>> should be a goal to make the source directory structure and the binary
>> directory structure overlap like this. The binary tarball should
>> really just a "ready to use" thing, and the source should be a "ready
>> to develop or re-package" thing.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Billie Rinaldi
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I went through all the rpms and debs and tarballs to check to see if
>> >> they were including the right things (ACCUMULO-1404).
>> >>
>> >> Personally, I don't think they should be in a binary-release... source
>> >> code that needs to be compiled sounds like something you'd get out of
>> >> the source tarball, so I assumed its inclusion was an oversight that I
>> >> was correcting. (I did make sure the *.so files were included.) If
>> >> there's a reason to keep source code in a binary package, then, I can
>> >> add it back in, but really, if you can't use it out of the box, I'm
>> >> not sure it should be in the binary tarball.
>> >>
>> >
>> > This would be a change from what we were doing with "dist" releases, but
>> I
>> > am not necessarily against it.  I find it nice to have the source there,
>> as
>> > I often look things up in it.  To reproduce the previous structure,
>> would I
>> > be able to just unpack the source release over the binary release?
>> >
>> > Billie
>> >
>> >
>> >> This is related to another issue I was looking at also, so i'll mention
>> it
>> >> here:
>> >> What do we include for proxy thrift bindings? I see that currently
>> >> we're dropping in the gen-rb, gen-java, and gen-py folders from the
>> >> proxy thrift compilation. However, I'm not so sure we should be doing
>> >> this... because:
>> >>
>> >> 1) we don't need to include java bindings for the proxy; compiled
>> >> versions are already in the proxy jar,
>> >> 2) not all packagers will even have installed thrift with the ability
>> >> to produce ruby and python bindings,
>> >> 3) these may or may not be helpful to any particular end user (though
>> >> it's probably safe to assume ruby and python will be the most common),
>> >> 4) we're not including the proxy.thrift file, which is perhaps the
>> >> most important file for the proxy, and including it should be
>> >> sufficient.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:22 PM, David Medinets
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > I ran this command:
>> >> >
>> >> > git clone --branch 1.5 https://github.com/apache/accumulo.git
>> >> >
>> >> > then compiled to get a binary-release.tar.gz file. That gz file does
>> not
>> >> > seem to contain the C++ files to build the native libraries. Should
>> they
>> >> be
>> >> > there? I don't recall hearing about removing them.
>> >>
>>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB