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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Christopher 2013-05-17, 18:31
Well, the reason not to, was to draw a line in the sand between what
it means to have a "source" release, and a "binary" release.
But, I agree that there's probably sufficient reason to include them
despite crossing that line, and it seems the consensus is going that
way.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I like the idea of including the most widely used library, but empirical
> evidence tells me that roughly half of the users of Accumulo will still
> need to compile/recompile to get native map support. There is no reason not
> to make that as easy as possible by including the cpp code in the
> -bin.tar.gz -- at least I haven't heard a reason not to do that yet.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Adam, I didn't make any changes on this, because there were only a few
>> opinions, and it didn't seem like there was a consensus. I can make
>> this change, though, if a consensus is established. It's very small,
>> and easy to do.
>>
>> Billie, any of those options would work. I'm not sure we need to
>> recommend a particular one over the other, as long as users know how
>> to get there.
>>
>> An option that Keith and I were discussing is possibly packaging
>> against glibc-2.5 by default, which should reduce the impact on people
>> using RHEL/CentOS 5, but should still work for RHEL/CentOS 6 or
>> anything newer (though they may have to install compat-glibc-2.5). I'm
>> not sure the appropriate modifications to make to get this to work,
>> though.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Billie Rinaldi
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Folks,
>> >>
>> >> Sorry to be late to the party, but did we come to a consensus on this?
>> >> Seems like we still have opinions both ways as to whether the cpp code
>> >> should be packaged with the binary distribution. I would argue that cpp
>> >> code is a special case, since the build is so platform dependent. It's
>> >> generally hard to distribute the right .so files to cover all platforms,
>> >> and we have run into many cases in practice where the native maps don't
>> >> work out of the box. While downloading the source and untarring it over
>> the
>> >> same directory is not too much extra work,
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm neutral on whether the source files should be included in the binary
>> > artifacts.  However, I wanted to point out that it sounds like untarring
>> > the source over binaries is not the recommended procedure.  So what is
>> the
>> > recommended procedure?  Untar the source, navigate to the c++ directory,
>> > build, and drop the resulting .so file into an existing binary
>> > installation?  Or just build your own binary tarball from source?
>> >
>> > Billie
>> >
>> >
>> > it seems like the only argument
>> >> not to package the native source code with the binary distribution is a
>> >> dogmatic one. Are there any practical reasons why it would be bad to add
>> >> the cpp file to the bin distribution?
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Adam
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Rumor has it that one of the core developers is irrationally hostile
>> to
>> >> > perl.
>> >> >
>> >> > And octal.
>> >> >
>> >> > And xml.
>> >> >
>> >> > He's just old and cranky.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Eric
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:29 PM, David Medinets <
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > How come perl is getting no love?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > On 5/12/13 11:45 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> 1) we don't need to include java bindings for the proxy; compiled
+
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
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 21:18
+
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