accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: documentation on dealing with legacy Hadoop versions
Date Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:26:40 GMT


On 1/3/14, 11:17 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>   2) Should we document commons-configuration similar to commons-io?
>>>
>>> The README already has a section about how some older versions of Hadoop
>>> don't have commons-io. I think the versions given need to be tightened up
>>> given (1) above (since right now it implicitly refers to versions people
>>> should not be using).
>>>
>>> The only Hadoop distro I know of that both has proper append support and
>>> does not have commons-configuration is CDH3. In addition to being a
>>> vendor-specific version, it is no longer supported by said vendor.
>>>
>>> So would it be preferable to
>>>
>>>     2a) add a note after the commons-io section that gives similar
>>> instructions for adding commons-configuration?
>>>
>>>     2b) file a jira that points out that users on CDH3 won't have commons
>>> configuration, document the work around on said ticket, close it as
>>> won'tfix
>>>
>>> The idea with the latter approach is that it would give searchers a chance
>>> to find the information and give us somewhere to point people, while not
>>> adding to our long-term documentation baggage. The downside is that this
>>> won't be as accessible to users, so it will be more painful for them (esp
>>> if they don't have regular internet access).
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure of what's best to do here. 1.6 undid the provided scope on
>> those dependencies because 1.5 was such a pain to deal with in this regard
>> (at least that's how I remember it). Perhaps a Jira is a good reference
>> point and we can link to the ticket which made that change in 1.6. I doubt
>> most users will find that on their own, but perhaps some might and it at
>> least would keep us from having to repeat the same answer.
>>
>>
>>>
>
> I thought we undid the provided scope but still did not include them in our
> packaging?
>

Ah, you are correct. I haven't run into the problem lately, so I assumed 
it was from them being included in the dist.

Point of reference: HBase-0.96.0 will pull *all* dependencies into 
$HBASE_HOME/lib. Now, while I don't think I want to re-package all of 
the Hadoop jars and its dependencies, I don't think it's unreasonable to 
repackage ones that may be duplicated by the hadoop distribution that we 
specifically need (thinking specifically of the commons-*).


Mime
View raw message