accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Allen <mich...@sqrrl.com>
Subject Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Date Fri, 17 May 2013 21:19:19 GMT
Just a quick weigh in here:

As a user of open source software, I have no expectation that a file called
"-bin" have zero source code in it.  What I expect is that I should be able
to download a thing called "-bin", untar it and run it without having to do
a compile.  To make it run *fast*, I would expect to do "something else"
where that might be compiling something or configuring something.  I would
*not* expect that a *common* way to make something run fast be included in
something *else* that I have to download.  That just makes me think that
the people that put this "-bin" together for me wanted me to jump through
extra hoops to make it run right.

To William's point about seeing a Makefile and thinking I have to build
something to make it work: I don't think the Makefile is at the top level
directory, right?  Given that, I might never see it unless I go poking
around for it (or find instructions that direct me to it).

- Mike


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Adam Fuchs <afuchs@apache.org> wrote:

> I'm with Michael on this one. We should really only be releasing one
> package that has all of the source and built binaries. IMO the
> interpretation of http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html that we must have
> a source-only release is overly restrictive. "Every ASF release must
> contain a source package, which must be sufficient for a user to build and
> test the release provided they have access to the appropriate platform and
> tools." can also be interpreted such that a single package with source and
> binaries meets the release requirement.
>
> I have seen a lot of confusion about people trying to build the accumulo
> code when they really don't need to, and they often run into trouble when
> their environment is not set up for java development. Having multiple
> .tar.gz artifacts adds to this confusion. When we reordered the download
> page so that the -dist.tar.gz came before the -src.tar.gz those types of
> questions dropped dramatically on the mailing list. The existence of the
> -src.tar.gz creates confusion on its own (although our README doesn't
> help).
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Michael Berman <mberman@sqrrl.com> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message