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?
Josh Elser 2013-05-17, 20:20
It's also worthwhile to note, again, that you don't *need* that native
map to run Accumulo.

I agree with your point on the suffix. If we can't come to something
where everyone is happy, we don't make two distributions.

To give some 3rd party ASF context -- Apache Hadoop, in their bin
distribution, includes "no" source (which includes Java and C++). In
their src distribution, you get both the compiled binaries and the source.

Only caveat with that are some headers that I think you need to run
pipes, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

On 5/17/13 4:00 PM, Michael Berman 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
>>>>> -bin.tar.gz to make their life easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a very simple decision. It really doesn't matter how easy it is
>>>>> to
>>>>> include prebuilt native code in some other way or build the code and
>> copy
>>>>> it in using some other method. Those are all tangential arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM, William Slacum <
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]**> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   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.