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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Well, the reason not to, was to draw a line in the sand between what
> it means to have a "source" release, and a "binary" release.
> But, I agree that there's probably sufficient reason to include them
> despite crossing that line, and it seems the consensus is going that
> way.
>

Irrespective of where this source code is I am not sure we have good
documentation anywhere that outlines how and why native maps should be
built.  Things work if they are not built or built but fail to load.  I
will open a ticket for the documentation issue.
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> add
> >> >> the cpp file to the bin distribution?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Adam
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Rumor has it that one of the core developers is irrationally
> hostile
>
+
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
+
Billie Rinaldi 2013-05-17, 21:39
+
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