accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Date Fri, 17 May 2013 18:46:42 GMT
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Well, the reason not to, was to draw a line in the sand between what
> it means to have a "source" release, and a "binary" release.
> But, I agree that there's probably sufficient reason to include them
> despite crossing that line, and it seems the consensus is going that
> way.
>

Irrespective of where this source code is I am not sure we have good
documentation anywhere that outlines how and why native maps should be
built.  Things work if they are not built or built but fail to load.  I
will open a ticket for the documentation issue.


> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Adam Fuchs <afuchs@apache.org> 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