Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of enis.soz@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADcMMgEKsq9QMVd0wcvK=R8DeZfqwjcqPjxtaVVeKDO8dNdrjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1395893056.71602.YahooMailNeo@web140605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAB5sDNKKLW2+KA6+zxLPEoG8O0yoL9MtGS0KXKYEFre0fQUXiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADfYSXSPz7g+zq+w-pXA6_tfPsawz+Yk+3WHsV79aJrnfPnGKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADcMMgEKsq9QMVd0wcvK=R8DeZfqwjcqPjxtaVVeKDO8dNdrjw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Enis_S=C3=B6ztutar?= <enis.soz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:31:12 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAMUu0w9Js9tPSjZTM8fdD30VePmDKOu+YO4S_4Z3oZV3=aR7Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 0.94 non-secure tarballs
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301b69cd73333304f59acb4e

--20cf301b69cd73333304f59acb4e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

+1.

I think it was needed for compiling with hadoop-0.20.x versions which did
not support security.

Enis


On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> Good by me.  Was done for historical reasons and because the fellas adding
> security were gracious, being careful, ensuring security did not impinge on
> non-secure deploys.  We are in a different place now: i.e. underlying
> hadoop versions now support it and security is no longer a rare
> consideration.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Gary Helmling <ghelmling@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +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
> > >
> >
>

--20cf301b69cd73333304f59acb4e--