arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][C++] Rethinking our current C++ shared library (.so / .dll) approach
Date Thu, 12 Sep 2019 20:14:15 GMT

Le 12/09/2019 à 20:14, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> hi folks,
> 
> I wanted to share some concerns that I have about our current
> trajectory with regards to producing shared libraries from the Arrow
> build system.
> 
> Currently, a comprehensive build produces many shared libraries:
> 
> * libarrow
> * libarrow_dataset
> * libarrow_flight
> * libarrow_python
> * libgandiva
> * libparquet
> * libplasma

Each library pulls its own set of non-trivial third-party dependencies.
 For example, libarrow_flight includes gRPC, libcurl and OpenSSL as far
as I remember.

Worse, libarrow_cuda depends on the NVidia CUDA libraries.  That's a
*huge* dependency (and may also have runtime costs in addition to
installation / deployment annoyances).

Some packagers may also want to distribute some sublibraries separately
(Linux distros especially tend to like having many small, focussed
shared libraries that they can distribute as separate, dependent
packages) - but that's not my business and I'll let them speak up ;-)

So without deeper analysis I'm a bit worried about this proposal.

Regards

Antoine.

Mime
View raw message