Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo, mail # dev - Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?


+
David Medinets 2013-05-13, 03:22
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 03:45
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-13, 14:40
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 15:08
+
David Medinets 2013-05-13, 21:29
+
Eric Newton 2013-05-14, 02:48
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 14:26
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-17, 14:49
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 15:53
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 18:04
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 18:31
+
Keith Turner 2013-05-17, 18:46
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 18:22
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 18:49
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 19:11
+
John Vines 2013-05-17, 19:17
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 19:35
+
John Vines 2013-05-17, 19:51
+
Michael Berman 2013-05-17, 20:00
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 20:20
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 21:12
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-17, 21:39
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-18, 02:11
+
Christopher 2013-05-18, 02:39
+
Dave Marion 2013-05-17, 22:01
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 21:53
+
Drew Pierce 2013-05-17, 21:42
+
Michael Allen 2013-05-17, 21:19
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 21:39
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 21:36
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 21:34
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-17, 20:26
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 20:57
+
Corey Nolet 2013-05-17, 19:19
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 19:34
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 00:43
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-13, 14:21
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 15:13
+
John Vines 2013-05-13, 15:34
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Christopher 2013-05-13, 21:18
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.
>> >>
>>
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-13, 23:37
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 00:42
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 03:46
+
David Medinets 2013-05-13, 12:26
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 13:45