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?
Christopher 2013-05-13, 15:13
Yeah, you could essentially unpack the source over the binary... for
now, anyway... but some things would be slightly different. Like the
addition of the proxy/thrift directory for the generated thrift
bindings pulled out of proxy/target/. But... I really don't think it
should be a goal to make the source directory structure and the binary
directory structure overlap like this. The binary tarball should
really just a "ready to use" thing, and the source should be a "ready
to develop or re-package" thing.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Billie Rinaldi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I went through all the rpms and debs and tarballs to check to see if
>> they were including the right things (ACCUMULO-1404).
>>
>> Personally, I don't think they should be in a binary-release... source
>> code that needs to be compiled sounds like something you'd get out of
>> the source tarball, so I assumed its inclusion was an oversight that I
>> was correcting. (I did make sure the *.so files were included.) If
>> there's a reason to keep source code in a binary package, then, I can
>> add it back in, but really, if you can't use it out of the box, I'm
>> not sure it should be in the binary tarball.
>>
>
> This would be a change from what we were doing with "dist" releases, but I
> am not necessarily against it.  I find it nice to have the source there, as
> I often look things up in it.  To reproduce the previous structure, would I
> be able to just unpack the source release over the binary release?
>
> Billie
>
>
>> This is related to another issue I was looking at also, so i'll mention it
>> here:
>> What do we include for proxy thrift bindings? I see that currently
>> we're dropping in the gen-rb, gen-java, and gen-py folders from the
>> proxy thrift compilation. However, I'm not so sure we should be doing
>> this... because:
>>
>> 1) we don't need to include java bindings for the proxy; compiled
>> versions are already in the proxy jar,
>> 2) not all packagers will even have installed thrift with the ability
>> to produce ruby and python bindings,
>> 3) these may or may not be helpful to any particular end user (though
>> it's probably safe to assume ruby and python will be the most common),
>> 4) we're not including the proxy.thrift file, which is perhaps the
>> most important file for the proxy, and including it should be
>> sufficient.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:22 PM, David Medinets
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I ran this command:
>> >
>> > git clone --branch 1.5 https://github.com/apache/accumulo.git
>> >
>> > then compiled to get a binary-release.tar.gz file. That gz file does not
>> > seem to contain the C++ files to build the native libraries. Should they
>> be
>> > there? I don't recall hearing about removing them.
>>