Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 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?
Just a quick weigh in here:

As a user of open source software, I have no expectation that a file called
"-bin" have zero source code in it.  What I expect is that I should be able
to download a thing called "-bin", untar it and run it without having to do
a compile.  To make it run *fast*, I would expect to do "something else"
where that might be compiling something or configuring something.  I would
*not* expect that a *common* way to make something run fast be included in
something *else* that I have to download.  That just makes me think that
the people that put this "-bin" together for me wanted me to jump through
extra hoops to make it run right.

To William's point about seeing a Makefile and thinking I have to build
something to make it work: I don't think the Makefile is at the top level
directory, right?  Given that, I might never see it unless I go poking
around for it (or find instructions that direct me to it).

- Mike
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm with Michael on this one. We should really only be releasing one
> package that has all of the source and built binaries. IMO the
> interpretation of http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html that we must have
> a source-only release is overly restrictive. "Every ASF release must
> contain a source package, which must be sufficient for a user to build and
> test the release provided they have access to the appropriate platform and
> tools." can also be interpreted such that a single package with source and
> binaries meets the release requirement.
> I have seen a lot of confusion about people trying to build the accumulo
> code when they really don't need to, and they often run into trouble when
> their environment is not set up for java development. Having multiple
> .tar.gz artifacts adds to this confusion. When we reordered the download
> page so that the -dist.tar.gz came before the -src.tar.gz those types of
> questions dropped dramatically on the mailing list. The existence of the
> -src.tar.gz creates confusion on its own (although our README doesn't
> help).
> Adam
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Michael Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As an Accumulo user, the thing I want most is a single package that
> > contains the things I need to set up a running instance.  I don't want to
> > build the whole thing from source, but I am happy to build the native
> map,
> > unless every possible architecture is going to be distributed.  I really
> > don't care at all whether the tarball name ends in "-bin" or "-package"
> or
> > "-theStuffYouWant".  If the only reason not to include the native map
> > sources in the binary release is because the filename ends in -bin, why
> not
> > just call it accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If we're going to be making binary releases that have no other
> mechanism
> > > for creating the native libraries, then we should probably cut a few
> > > different binary releases for x86, amd64, and darwin at the very least.
> > >
> > > Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
> > > On May 17, 2013 12:36 PM, "Josh Elser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm happy we're stating our opinions here, but there are also two
> other
> > > > people who believe that the bin should not contain it. That's nice
> that
> > > you
> > > > want source code in a binary release, but your opinion is not the
> only
> > > one.
> > > > I feel like you're telling me that my opinion is sub-par to your
> > opinion
> > > > because it is.
> > > >
> > > > If this is such a sticking point, I move that we completely kill the
> > > > notion of source and binary releases and make one tarball that
> contains
> > > > both.
> > > >
> > > > On 5/17/13 3:17 PM, John Vines wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I agree with Adam. It seems like it's a debate of consistency vs.
> > > >> pragmatism. The cost of including these libraries are all of maybe