Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 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?
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.
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB