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?
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 to
>> > perl.
>> >
>> > And octal.
>> >
>> > And xml.
>> >
>> > He's just old and cranky.
>> >
>> > -Eric
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:29 PM, David Medinets <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > How come perl is getting no love?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On 5/12/13 11:45 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> 1) we don't need to include java bindings for the proxy; compiled
>> > > >> versions are already in the proxy jar,
>> > > >> 2) not all packagers will even have installed thrift with the
>> ability
>> > > >> to produce ruby and python bindings,
>> > > >> 3) these may or may not be helpful to any particular end user
>> (though
>> > > >> it's probably safe to assume ruby and python will be the most
>> common),
>> > > >> 4) we're not including the proxy.thrift file, which is perhaps the
>> > > >> most important file for the proxy, and including it should be
>> > > >> sufficient.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  1)That works. I should've caught that when I was in the proxy last
>> > and
>> > > I
>> > > > didn't.Thanks for that.
>> > > > 2) Do you mean packagers as in people who might make an official
>> > release?
>> > > > I would think these are the only people that "really" matter, and
>> thus
>> > I
>> > > > would expect them to be able to build a full distributionthat include
>> > > these
>> > > > bindings. It might be nice to be able to create a packaging for each
>> > > > language (gem, egg, etc); but until we have some sort of packaging,
>> I'd
>> > > > really like to see theruby and pythonsources included even in the
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