incubator-bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: Optional dependencies
Date Fri, 29 Jun 2012 04:51:31 GMT

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Bruno Mahé <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Through Roman came up
> with a question and wants to discuss about it.

Since I was the one who suggested bringing this to the list
let me explain some of the concerns as I remember them
(I can swear having a discussion on this at some point ;-)).

> How do you people feel about optional dependencies?
> Most distributions put them in subpackages since:
> * It is optional and therefore not everyone wants to pull all the
> optional dependencies
> * It is easy to find out
> * It is easy to install
> * Optional dependencies know what to install. Without it, users would be
> left alone and would have to figure out by themselves and then do all
> the work by themselves to download all the additional dependencies

To make the conversation a bit more practical let me give others
an example with Hive. Hive currently has support for HBase,
but strictly speaking it is an "optional" feature. IOW, hive can
function ok without HBase jars on the system (but of course
you can't access HBase data).

The choices we've got in packaging Hive are:
   #1 hive package does NOT t have a dependency on hbase package
   #2 hive package DOES have a dependency on HBase package
        (and all the other optional features to go with it, which is
kind of nuts)
   #3 hive package doesn't have a dependency on HBase  but we
        have an extra package called hive-hbase that does.

Personally, I think I'm reasonably fine with #3 (after all it kind of combines
#1 with an extra package) with the only concern that I remember
being potential combinatoric explosion of  these helper packages
(e.g. hive-hbase, hive-cassandra, hive-hbase-cassandra, etc).


View raw message