[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8037?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13203442#comment-13203442 ]
Matt Foley commented on HADOOP-8037: ------------------------------------ The symlinks are now good! However, the rpms are retaining some paths they shouldn't: {code} $ rpm -qlp hadoop-1.0.1-1.i386.rpm|grep libhadoop /usr/c++/Linux-i386-32/lib/libhadooppipes.a /usr/c++/Linux-i386-32/lib/libhadooputils.a /usr/lib/libhadoop.a /usr/lib/libhadoop.la /usr/lib/libhadoop.so /usr/lib/libhadoop.so.1 /usr/lib/libhadoop.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/libhadooppipes.a /usr/lib/libhadooputils.a $ rpm -qlp hadoop-1.0.1-1.amd64.rpm|grep libhadoop /usr/c++/Linux-amd64-64/lib/libhadooppipes.a /usr/c++/Linux-amd64-64/lib/libhadooputils.a /usr/c++/Linux-i386-32/lib/libhadooppipes.a /usr/c++/Linux-i386-32/lib/libhadooputils.a /usr/lib64/libhadoop.a /usr/lib64/libhadoop.la /usr/lib64/libhadoop.so /usr/lib64/libhadoop.so.1 /usr/lib64/libhadoop.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libhadooppipes.a /usr/lib64/libhadooputils.a {code} I think the /usr/c++/<platform>/lib paths shouldn't be in the rpms, only in the bin-tarball. Also, in the bin-tarball, the libhadooppipes and utils libs are handled inconsistently: {code} $ tar ztf hadoop-1.0.1-bin.tar.gz|grep libhadoop hadoop-1.0.1/c++/Linux-amd64-64/lib/libhadooppipes.a hadoop-1.0.1/c++/Linux-amd64-64/lib/libhadooputils.a hadoop-1.0.1/c++/Linux-i386-32/lib/libhadooppipes.a hadoop-1.0.1/c++/Linux-i386-32/lib/libhadooputils.a hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-amd64-64/libhadoop.a hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-amd64-64/libhadoop.la hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-amd64-64/libhadoop.so hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-amd64-64/libhadoop.so.1 hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-amd64-64/libhadoop.so.1.0.0 hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-amd64-64/libhadooppipes.a hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-amd64-64/libhadooputils.a hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-i386-32/libhadoop.a hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-i386-32/libhadoop.la hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-i386-32/libhadoop.so hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-i386-32/libhadoop.so.1 hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-i386-32/libhadoop.so.1.0.0 I think the files {code} hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-amd64-64/libhadooppipes.a hadoop-1.0.1/lib/native/Linux-amd64-64/libhadooputils.a {code} shouldn't be there. The source tarball looked fine. Finally, please remove the commented-out line in build.xml: {code} <!--<delete dir="${dist.dir}"/> --> {code} Thanks. > Binary tarball does not preserve platform info for native builds, and fails > to provide needed symlinks for libhadoop.so > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HADOOP-8037 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8037 > Project: Hadoop Common > Issue Type: Bug > Components: build > Affects Versions: 1.0.1 > Reporter: Matt Foley > Assignee: Giridharan Kesavan > Attachments: hadoop-8037.patch > > > The source tarball uses "package" ant target, which includes both sets of > native builds (32 and 64 bit libraries), under subdirectories that are named > for the supported platform, so you can tell what they are. > The binary tarball uses the "bin-package" ant target, which projects both > sets of native builds into a single directory, stripping out the platform > names from the directory paths. Since the native built libraries have > identical names, only one of each survives the process. Afterward, there is > no way to know whether they are intended for 32 or 64 bit environments. > It seems to be done this way as a step toward building the rpm and deb > artifacts. But the rpms and debs are self-identifying as to the platform > they were built for, and contain only one set of libs each, while the binary > tarball isn't. The binary tarball should have the same platform-specific > subdirectories that the full tarball does; but this means that the rpm and > deb builds have to be more careful about include/exclude specs for what goes > into those artifacts. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira