hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 0.94 non-secure tarballs
Date Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:46:24 GMT
Cool. Thanks Jesse, Stack, and Gary.
I filed a ticket to do so... And probably mess up the pom horribly until somebody shows me
how to it.

-- Lars

 From: Gary Helmling <ghelmling@gmail.com>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> 
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: 0.94 non-secure tarballs

+1, seems fine to eliminate the non-secure builds now.

The main reason for doing security as a separate profile was to make it
possible to continue to build and run HBase on a pre-1.0 Hadoop (Hadoop
without the security classes referenced in the HBase security code).  We
don't even have a profile for a non-secure Hadoop anymore, so I can't see
this being an issue any longer.

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.yates@gmail.com>wrote:

> +1
> Might need a good set of documentation the first couple times, but seems
> reasonable.
> On Mar 26, 2014 9:04 PM, "lars hofhansl" <larsh@apache.org> wrote:
> > I am thinking to stop releasing the tarballs without the security code.
> > They do not really add anything, the secure tarballs work perfectly OK
> > without security. The secure builds just have some source and class
> files.
> >
> > I would also get rid of the non-secure build completely and just have one
> > way to build HBase.
> >
> > Any objections? Are there any other reasons to build both a secure and
> > non-secure tarball? Export restrictions, or anything?
> >
> > I think that would also make it trivial to release the secure bits to
> > maven (but maven is black magic to me, so I do not know for sure).
> >
> > -- Lars
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message