accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie Rinaldi <>
Subject Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Date Mon, 13 May 2013 14:21:32 GMT
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 I
> 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?


> 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.

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