accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Date Mon, 13 May 2013 03:45:20 GMT
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 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

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.

View raw message