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
+
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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I went through all the rpms and debs and tarballs to check to see if
> they were including the right things (ACCUMULO-1404).
>
> Personally, I don't think they should be in a binary-release... source
> code that needs to be compiled sounds like something you'd get out of
> the source tarball, so I assumed its inclusion was an oversight that I
> was correcting. (I did make sure the *.so files were included.) If
> there's a reason to keep source code in a binary package, then, I can
> add it back in, but really, if you can't use it out of the box, I'm
> not sure it should be in the binary tarball.
>

This would be a change from what we were doing with "dist" releases, but I
am not necessarily against it.  I find it nice to have the source there, as
I often look things up in it.  To reproduce the previous structure, would I
be able to just unpack the source release over the binary release?

Billie
> This is related to another issue I was looking at also, so i'll mention it
> here:
> What do we include for proxy thrift bindings? I see that currently
> we're dropping in the gen-rb, gen-java, and gen-py folders from the
> proxy thrift compilation. However, I'm not so sure we should be doing
> this... because:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:22 PM, David Medinets
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I ran this command:
> >
> > git clone --branch 1.5 https://github.com/apache/accumulo.git
> >
> > then compiled to get a binary-release.tar.gz file. That gz file does not
> > seem to contain the C++ files to build the native libraries. Should they
> be
> > there? I don't recall hearing about removing them.
>
+
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