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?
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
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