That sounds like a tremendous headache for the users where the pre-built native libraries aren't sufficient.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, you could essentially unpack the source over the binary... for > now, anyway... but some things would be slightly different. Like the > addition of the proxy/thrift directory for the generated thrift > bindings pulled out of proxy/target/. But... I really don't think it > should be a goal to make the source directory structure and the binary > directory structure overlap like this. The binary tarball should > really just a "ready to use" thing, and the source should be a "ready > to develop or re-package" thing. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Billie Rinaldi > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> I went through all the rpms and debs and tarballs to check to see if > >> they were including the right things (ACCUMULO-1404). > >> > >> Personally, I don't think they should be in a binary-release... source > >> code that needs to be compiled sounds like something you'd get out of > >> the source tarball, so I assumed its inclusion was an oversight that I > >> was correcting. (I did make sure the *.so files were included.) If > >> there's a reason to keep source code in a binary package, then, I can > >> add it back in, but really, if you can't use it out of the box, I'm > >> not sure it should be in the binary tarball. > >> > > > > This would be a change from what we were doing with "dist" releases, but > I > > am not necessarily against it. I find it nice to have the source there, > as > > I often look things up in it. To reproduce the previous structure, > would I > > be able to just unpack the source release over the binary release? > > > > Billie > > > > > >> This is related to another issue I was looking at also, so i'll mention > it > >> here: > >> What do we include for proxy thrift bindings? I see that currently > >> we're dropping in the gen-rb, gen-java, and gen-py folders from the > >> proxy thrift compilation. However, I'm not so sure we should be doing > >> this... because: > >> > >> 1) we don't need to include java bindings for the proxy; compiled > >> versions are already in the proxy jar, > >> 2) not all packagers will even have installed thrift with the ability > >> to produce ruby and python bindings, > >> 3) these may or may not be helpful to any particular end user (though > >> it's probably safe to assume ruby and python will be the most common), > >> 4) we're not including the proxy.thrift file, which is perhaps the > >> most important file for the proxy, and including it should be > >> sufficient. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > >> > >> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:22 PM, David Medinets > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I ran this command: > >> > > >> > git clone --branch 1.5 https://github.com/apache/accumulo.git > >> > > >> > then compiled to get a binary-release.tar.gz file. That gz file does > not > >> > seem to contain the C++ files to build the native libraries. Should > they > >> be > >> > there? I don't recall hearing about removing them. > >> >
