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 Fri, 17 May 2013 18:22:00 GMT
I believe I already voiced my opinion on this, but let me restate it 
since the conversation is happening again.

Bundling the native library built with a "common" library is easiest and 
I believe makes the most sense. My opinion is that source files should 
be included in a source release and that a bin release doesn't include 
source files. Since we're specifically making this distinction by making 
these releases, it doesn't make sense to me why we would decide "oh, 
well in this one case, the bin dist will actually have _some_ src files 

Is it not intuitive that if people need to rebuild something, that they 
download a src dist (and bin) to start? :shrug:

On 5/17/13 2:04 PM, Adam Fuchs wrote:
> Chris,
> I like the idea of including the most widely used library, but empirical
> evidence tells me that roughly half of the users of Accumulo will still
> need to compile/recompile to get native map support. There is no reason not
> to make that as easy as possible by including the cpp code in the
> -bin.tar.gz -- at least I haven't heard a reason not to do that yet.
> Adam
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Christopher <> wrote:
>> 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
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Billie Rinaldi
>> <> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Adam Fuchs <> 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 <>
>>>> 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 <
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> How come perl is getting no love?
>>>>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Josh Elser <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/13 11:45 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> 1) we don't need to include java bindings for the proxy;
>>>>>>>> versions are already in the proxy jar,
>>>>>>>> 2) not all packagers will even have installed thrift with
>>>> ability
>>>>>>>> to produce ruby and python bindings,
>>>>>>>> 3) these may or may not be helpful to any particular end
>>>> (though
>>>>>>>> it's probably safe to assume ruby and python will be the
>>>> common),
>>>>>>>> 4) we're not including the proxy.thrift file, which is perhaps
>> the
>>>>>>>> most important file for the proxy, and including it should
>>>>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>>>>>   1)That works. I should've caught that when I was in the
>> 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,
>>>> 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
>>>>> binary
>>>>>>> dist.
>>>>>>> 3)True, but I'd rather set the bar as low as possible for people
>> who
>>>>> just
>>>>>>> want to play around in a scripting language with Accumulo.
>>>>>>> 4) Definitely want to make sure it's included.
>>>>>>> Does anyone have an opinion on other languages that thrift
>> supports
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> we should also create bindings for? I concur with your opinion
>>>> Ruby
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Python, but I wonder if there's something else that people would
>> also
>>>>>> like.

View raw message