accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: Releasing 1.5
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:24:22 GMT
John, the preferred naming convention, is to use classifiers (maven
terminology), which results in file names such as:
<artifactId>-<version>-<classifier>.jar; but this is best done as a
conscious decision to produce multiple variants of the same artifact.
It doesn't work that well in Maven when you have to recompile the same

In RPM, the convention is to use the "release" portion of the package
name, which identifies the versioning of the packaging (vs. the
versioning of the source): <artifact>-<version>-<release>.<arch>.rpm
(example"subversion-1.6.11-9.el6_4.x86_64.rpm" or
"subversion-1.7.8-3.fc18.i686.rpm"). These are almost always
customized packaging that diverge from upstream's official release in
some way (file paths, default configuration, recompiled with different
options, etc.).

So, I think one set of build artifacts is sufficient... at least for
the purposes of getting through a vote.

Christopher L Tubbs II

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:35 PM, John Vines <> wrote:
> I had issues running a hadoop2 compiled version of accumulo against CDH4, I
> can't remember the specifics of it though.
> When I said specialized packaging, I was thinking of a naming convention to
> distinguish hadoop1 vs. hadoop2 ( vs. vendor-specific hadoop) compiled jars.
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Billie Rinaldi <>wrote:
>> I'm not sure we are talking about actual vendor-specific code.  We are
>> deciding whether or not to create additional release tarballs that have
>> been compiled against various vendors' Hadoop-compatible file systems.
>> Assuming that we determine there is nothing prohibiting us from doing this,
>> I think it would simply be up to the release manager (i.e. anyone who
>> assembles a release and calls a vote for it).  If someone cares enough
>> about a particular distribution to build and create an extra tarball, they
>> can.  However, I don't think this is common for Apache projects --
>> additional packaging is usually left to supporting companies.  I haven't
>> even noticed any releases yet that come in Hadoop 1 and Hadoop 2 flavors.
>> I haven't heard (until now) that Accumulo compiled against an appropriate
>> version of Apache Hadoop will not work with CDH, but John says that's the
>> case.  John, have you tried this?  Also, what is the "specialized
>> packaging" you referred to?
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:32 PM, David Medinets
>> <>wrote:
>> > Does it make sense to put vendor-specific stuff under a contribs/vendors
>> > directory? Doing so would certainly indicate that we are vendor-agnostic.
>> > And give vendors an obvious place to contribute.
>> >

View raw message