accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Date Fri, 17 May 2013 20:20:17 GMT
It's also worthwhile to note, again, that you don't *need* that native 
map to run Accumulo.

I agree with your point on the suffix. If we can't come to something 
where everyone is happy, we don't make two distributions.

To give some 3rd party ASF context -- Apache Hadoop, in their bin 
distribution, includes "no" source (which includes Java and C++). In 
their src distribution, you get both the compiled binaries and the source.

Only caveat with that are some headers that I think you need to run 
pipes, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

On 5/17/13 4:00 PM, Michael Berman wrote:
> As an Accumulo user, the thing I want most is a single package that
> contains the things I need to set up a running instance.  I don't want to
> build the whole thing from source, but I am happy to build the native map,
> unless every possible architecture is going to be distributed.  I really
> don't care at all whether the tarball name ends in "-bin" or "-package" or
> "-theStuffYouWant".  If the only reason not to include the native map
> sources in the binary release is because the filename ends in -bin, why not
> just call it accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz?
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> If we're going to be making binary releases that have no other mechanism
>> for creating the native libraries, then we should probably cut a few
>> different binary releases for x86, amd64, and darwin at the very least.
>>
>> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
>> On May 17, 2013 12:36 PM, "Josh Elser" <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm happy we're stating our opinions here, but there are also two other
>>> people who believe that the bin should not contain it. That's nice that
>> you
>>> want source code in a binary release, but your opinion is not the only
>> one.
>>> I feel like you're telling me that my opinion is sub-par to your opinion
>>> because it is.
>>>
>>> If this is such a sticking point, I move that we completely kill the
>>> notion of source and binary releases and make one tarball that contains
>>> both.
>>>
>>> On 5/17/13 3:17 PM, John Vines wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Adam. It seems like it's a debate of consistency vs.
>>>> pragmatism. The cost of including these libraries are all of maybe 1kb
>> in
>>>> the package. The cost of excluding them is potential frustration from
>> end
>>>> users and a lot of repetitive stress against the Apache Mirrors (lets
>> try
>>>> and be considerate). I think it's a no brainer, but I have yet to here a
>>>> reason that is not 'no source code in a binary release!'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Adam Fuchs <afuchs@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   Just to solidify the decision that Chris is already leaning towards,
>> let
>>>>> me
>>>>> try to clarify my position:
>>>>> 1. The only reason not to add the native library source code in the
>>>>> -bin.tar.gz distribution is that src != bin. There is no measurable
>>>>> negative effect of putting the cpp files and Makefile into the
>>>>> -bin.tar.gz.
>>>>> 2. At least one person wants the native library source code in the
>>>>> -bin.tar.gz to make their life easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a very simple decision. It really doesn't matter how easy it
is
>>>>> to
>>>>> include prebuilt native code in some other way or build the code and
>> copy
>>>>> it in using some other method. Those are all tangential arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM, William Slacum <
>>>>> wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net**> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   I think of the native maps as an add on and they should probably be
>>>>>>
>>>>> treated
>>>>>
>>>>>> as such. I think we should consider building a different package
and
>>>>>> installing them separately. Personally, for development and testing,
I
>>>>>> don't use them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since we're building RPMs and debian packages, the steps to install
an
>>>>>>
>>>>> add
>>>>>
>>>>>> on is roughly 20 keystrokes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   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 too."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it not intuitive that if people need to rebuild something,
that
>> they
>>>>>>> download a src dist (and bin) to start? :shrug:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message