Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?


+
David Medinets 2013-05-13, 03:22
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 03:45
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-13, 14:40
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 15:08
+
David Medinets 2013-05-13, 21:29
+
Eric Newton 2013-05-14, 02:48
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 14:26
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-17, 14:49
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 15:53
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 18:04
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 18:31
+
Keith Turner 2013-05-17, 18:46
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 18:22
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 18:49
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 19:11
+
John Vines 2013-05-17, 19:17
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 19:35
+
John Vines 2013-05-17, 19:51
+
Michael Berman 2013-05-17, 20:00
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 20:20
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-17, 21:12
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
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]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>  Just to solidify the decision that Chris is already leaning
towards,
> > > let
> > > >>> me
> > > >>> try to clarify my position:
> > > >>> 1. The only reason not to add the native library source code in
the
> > > >>> -bin.tar.gz distribution is that src != bin. There is no
measurable
> > > >>> negative effect of putting the cpp files and Makefile into the
> > > >>> -bin.tar.gz.
> > > >>> 2. At least one person wants the native library source code in the
it
and
be
and
install
restate
include
making
well
that
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-18, 02:11
+
Christopher 2013-05-18, 02:39
+
Dave Marion 2013-05-17, 22:01
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 21:53
+
Drew Pierce 2013-05-17, 21:42
+
Michael Allen 2013-05-17, 21:19
+
Christopher 2013-05-17, 21:39
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 21:36
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 21:34
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-17, 20:26
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 20:57
+
Corey Nolet 2013-05-17, 19:19
+
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 19:34
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 00:43
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-13, 14:21
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 15:13
+
John Vines 2013-05-13, 15:34
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 21:18
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-13, 23:37
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 00:42
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 03:46
+
David Medinets 2013-05-13, 12:26
+
Christopher 2013-05-13, 13:45