Like what? Are our hadoop1 and hadoop2 artifacts not binary compatible with those?
In any case, I think that's why it's important to offer a source-release... we shouldn't be trying to build separate artifacts for every possible 3rd party variant of Hadoop. So long as there's a path forward for them to build from source, I think that should be sufficient, shouldn't it? -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:54 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > What about CDH3U5+ and CDH4? They also require some specialized packaging > as well. > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So, I have a process in place for releasing the tarballs, rpms, debs, >> jars, PDFs, etc. using the maven-release-plugin, that signs and seals >> everything and deploys to the staging repository for voting. I'm still >> polishing it before I commit it. >> >> However, I've not figured out the best way to generate and release the >> hadoop2 variants. They should be released with a classifier to >> indicate they are for hadoop2, if they are released, but our build >> isn't exactly set up to produce two artifacts per module, and neither >> are our scripts capable of dealing with artifacts with classifiers in >> them. >> >> My opinion is that we should release for Hadoop 1.0, but support >> building from source against 2.0. Since 2.0 is still beta, this seems >> acceptable to me, and we can try to do better support for packaging >> for 2.0 in Accumulo 1.6.0, with tickets such as ACCUMULO-210 and the >> like. >> >> -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:03 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Yes >> >> >> > >> > Ok, I vaguely remember discussion of this on a ticket or in mailing list. >> > Do you know the details? Is this caused by something hadoop is doing, or >> > is it how we are using Hadoop? Can we change something in Accumulo to >> > avoid this? >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:48 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Has anyone put any thought into how we're going to release 1.5, >> >> > considering >> >> > > the special cases needed for the various hadoop releases? I'm not >> only >> >> > > talking about distributions, but also the jars released to central. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Does compiling against Hadoop 1 result in Accumulo class files that >> will >> >> > not work w/ Hadoop 2? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > -- >> >> > > Cheers >> >> > > ~John >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
