accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Date Mon, 13 May 2013 23:37:04 GMT
I agree with you, Christopher. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect 
a user to download something else if the packaged .so doesn't work on a 
user's system. Write that down, etc, etc.

But, that does beg the question: what version of glibc are we going to 
build against? That could influence my opinion on the subject..

On 05/13/2013 05:18 PM, Christopher wrote:
> I question whether the following four steps should be considered a
> "tremendous headache", simply because of the fact that one needs to
> download a different file than the one already downloaded...
> 1. Download source tarball
> 2. Unpack source tarball
> 3. Navigate to server/src/main/c++
> 4. Run "make"
> ... but I can easily add it back in if that's the consensus.
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:34 AM, John Vines <> wrote:
>> That sounds like a tremendous headache for the users where the pre-built
>> native libraries aren't sufficient.
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Christopher <> wrote:
>>> Yeah, you could essentially unpack the source over the binary... for
>>> now, anyway... but some things would be slightly different. Like the
>>> addition of the proxy/thrift directory for the generated thrift
>>> bindings pulled out of proxy/target/. But... I really don't think it
>>> should be a goal to make the source directory structure and the binary
>>> directory structure overlap like this. The binary tarball should
>>> really just a "ready to use" thing, and the source should be a "ready
>>> to develop or re-package" thing.
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Billie Rinaldi
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Christopher <>
>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:22 PM, David Medinets
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>> I ran this command:
>>>>>> git clone --branch 1.5
>>>>>> 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.

View raw message