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?
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 18:49
I think of the native maps as an add on and they should probably be treated
as such. I think we should consider building a different package and
installing them separately. Personally, for development and testing, I
don't use them.

Since we're building RPMs and debian packages, the steps to install an add
on is roughly 20 keystrokes.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I believe I already voiced my opinion on this, but let me restate it since
> the conversation is happening again.
>
> Bundling the native library built with a "common" library is easiest and I
> believe makes the most sense. My opinion is that source files should be
> included in a source release and that a bin release doesn't include source
> files. Since we're specifically making this distinction by making these
> releases, it doesn't make sense to me why we would decide "oh, well in this
> one case, the bin dist will actually have _some_ src files too."
>
> Is it not intuitive that if people need to rebuild something, that they
> download a src dist (and bin) to start? :shrug:
>
>
> On 5/17/13 2:04 PM, Adam Fuchs 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