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
+
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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
William Slacum 2013-05-17, 21:34
The Makefile is nowhere at the moment :) But the point remains is that
someone in this thread has already confused an optional component as
necessary. I also wouldn't want to convey the idea that it doesn't run
"right" out of the box either.

I'm sure Christopher would be happy on a resolution. If we want the super
tar, that's fine, but it seems there's demand for a binary release.
Personally, I'm not averse to total distribution size, but I want whatever
someone downloads to be labeled properly and they get what they expected to
get.

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Michael Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Just a quick weigh in here:
>
> As a user of open source software, I have no expectation that a file called
> "-bin" have zero source code in it.  What I expect is that I should be able
> to download a thing called "-bin", untar it and run it without having to do
> a compile.  To make it run *fast*, I would expect to do "something else"
> where that might be compiling something or configuring something.  I would
> *not* expect that a *common* way to make something run fast be included in
> something *else* that I have to download.  That just makes me think that
> the people that put this "-bin" together for me wanted me to jump through
> extra hoops to make it run right.
>
> To William's point about seeing a Makefile and thinking I have to build
> something to make it work: I don't think the Makefile is at the top level
> directory, right?  Given that, I might never see it unless I go poking
> around for it (or find instructions that direct me to it).
>
> - Mike
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:12 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.
> >
> > 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:
+
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