avro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Massie <m...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Request for feedback regarding distribution of Avro C code
Date Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:54:22 GMT
To clarify this first paragraph:
* Hadoop has code dependencies between Java and native code for some
features (e.g. compression)
* Avro Java and C code only share a spec and have no code dependencies.
* The "I don't agree with the approach" might sound like criticism of the
Hadoop build but it's not meant to be.  I'm saying that I shouldn't have
modeled the Avro build on the Hadoop build which *does* have code
inter-dependencies for certain features.


On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Matt Massie <matt@cloudera.com> wrote:

> My experience has been that bolting autotool projects to ant projects
> causes *tons* of grieve for developers and consumers alike.  Originally, I
> packaged the C code the way I've seen it done for other Hadoop projects even
> though I don't agree with the approach.  Now, I'd like to do things
> differently if the team agrees.
> I propose the following:
> (1) Leave the "cdoc" and "package-c" targets in build.xml but remove all
> other C targets (e.g. configure-c, compile-c).  This will allow us to
> continue generating documentation and packaging the C code from ant.
> (2) Change the "package-c" target to run autotool's 'make distcheck' to
> create a distributable tarball (called avro-c-x.x.x.tar.gz).  People
> familiar with compiling native code will know to extract the tarball and
> then run "./configure;make".  Creating this tarball with autotools will
> ensure that all the necessary files exist (with the correct permissions),
> that 'make install uninstall' works without leaving files behind, remove any
> dependency on autotools, etc.
> (3) Instead of having a "Linux-i386-32" directory inside the top-level 'c'
> directory, users will find a ready-to-use avro-c-x.x.x.tar.gz C package and
> a README file
> People who want to work on the C source in svn/git will very likely be
> familiar with how to manage autotools and this setup wouldn't prevent them
> from happily hacking away.  Developers and users both would be happy and we
> wouldn't have to abuse ant and autotools in the process.
> -Matt

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message