accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Date Fri, 17 May 2013 19:17:24 GMT
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:
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > >> 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
> > >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Billie Rinaldi
> > >>> <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Adam Fuchs <afuchs@apache.org>
> > 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 <
> eric.newton@gmail.com
> > >
> > >>>>> 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 <
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> david.medinets@gmail.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  How come perl is getting no love?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Josh Elser <
> josh.elser@gmail.com
> > >
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>  On 5/12/13 11:45 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>  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.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>   1)That works. I should've caught that when
I was in the proxy
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 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, and
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 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 the
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 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 on
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Ruby
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Python, but I wonder if there's something else
that people would
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> also
> > >>>
> > >>>>  like.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message