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 think the point here is that *a* copy of the compiled native maps *is*
included. The point here is that the compiled library is now
platform/architecture dependent, and, how far should we go to make
things easier?

Adam, I don't recall seeing "dramatically less emails" on our lists, so
I would have to disagree with you on that point. Christopher does bring
up a good point on this subject: "what does -dist even mean?". Should it
work on linux-amd64? Linux-x86? OSX-intel? Windows-x64? OSX-ppc? Sparc?

In the interest of actually making something positive come out of this
that satisfies all parties, I move that we make an
${artifact}-${version}-src.tar.gz and
${artifact}-${version}-something.tar.gz. '-src' contains the expected
ASF source release, and '-something' contains the source and compiled
artifacts (platform specific and not). If '-something' == '-dist',
that's fine. In fact, I really don't care in that regard. If someone has
a better suggestion than '-dist' which is succinct and more descriptive,
I'd be happy to use that suggestion instead.

If I missed some caveat here, I apologize.

On 5/17/13 5:19 PM, Michael Allen wrote:
> 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?
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