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?
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?