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?
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-18, 02:11
I stand corrected. Thanks for the link, Billie. Looks like we should also
remove the .so file from the -src.tar.gz lest we risk having our project
deleted.

Adam

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Billie Rinaldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> On May 17, 2013 5:13 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.
>
> In lieu of ranting myself, I'll point you here: http://s.apache.org/nnN
>
> Billie
>
> >
> > 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
> 1kb
> > > > in
> > > > >> the package. The cost of excluding them is potential frustration
> from
> > > > end
> > > > >> users and a lot of repetitive stress against the Apache Mirrors
> (lets
> > > > try
> > > > >> and be considerate). I think it's a no brainer, but I have yet to
> > > here a
> > > > >> reason that is not 'no source code in a binary release!'
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>