I'm with Michael on this one. We should really only be releasing one package that has all of the source and built binaries. IMO the interpretation of http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html that we must have a source-only release is overly restrictive. "Every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have access to the appropriate platform and tools." can also be interpreted such that a single package with source and binaries meets the release requirement.
I have seen a lot of confusion about people trying to build the accumulo code when they really don't need to, and they often run into trouble when their environment is not set up for java development. Having multiple .tar.gz artifacts adds to this confusion. When we reordered the download page so that the -dist.tar.gz came before the -src.tar.gz those types of questions dropped dramatically on the mailing list. The existence of the -src.tar.gz creates confusion on its own (although our README doesn't help). Adam On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Michael Berman <mber...@sqrrl.com> wrote: > As an Accumulo user, the thing I want most is a single package that > contains the things I need to set up a running instance. I don't want to > build the whole thing from source, but I am happy to build the native map, > unless every possible architecture is going to be distributed. I really > don't care at all whether the tarball name ends in "-bin" or "-package" or > "-theStuffYouWant". If the only reason not to include the native map > sources in the binary release is because the filename ends in -bin, why not > just call it accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz? > > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > If we're going to be making binary releases that have no other mechanism > > for creating the native libraries, then we should probably cut a few > > different binary releases for x86, amd64, and darwin at the very least. > > > > Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. > > On May 17, 2013 12:36 PM, "Josh Elser" <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm happy we're stating our opinions here, but there are also two other > > > people who believe that the bin should not contain it. That's nice that > > you > > > want source code in a binary release, but your opinion is not the only > > one. > > > I feel like you're telling me that my opinion is sub-par to your > opinion > > > because it is. > > > > > > If this is such a sticking point, I move that we completely kill the > > > notion of source and binary releases and make one tarball that contains > > > both. > > > > > > On 5/17/13 3:17 PM, John Vines wrote: > > > > > >> I agree with Adam. It seems like it's a debate of consistency vs. > > >> pragmatism. The cost of including these libraries are all of maybe 1kb > > in > > >> the package. The cost of excluding them is potential frustration from > > end > > >> users and a lot of repetitive stress against the Apache Mirrors (lets > > try > > >> and be considerate). I think it's a no brainer, but I have yet to > here a > > >> reason that is not 'no source code in a binary release!' > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Adam Fuchs <afu...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Just to solidify the decision that Chris is already leaning towards, > > let > > >>> me > > >>> try to clarify my position: > > >>> 1. The only reason not to add the native library source code in the > > >>> -bin.tar.gz distribution is that src != bin. There is no measurable > > >>> negative effect of putting the cpp files and Makefile into the > > >>> -bin.tar.gz. > > >>> 2. At least one person wants the native library source code in the > > >>> -bin.tar.gz to make their life easier. > > >>> > > >>> This is a very simple decision. It really doesn't matter how easy it > is > > >>> to > > >>> include prebuilt native code in some other way or build the code and > > copy > > >>> it in using some other method. Those are all tangential arguments. > > >>> > > >>> Adam > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM, William Slacum < > > >>> wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net**> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I think of the native maps as an add on and they should probably be > > >>>> > > >>> treated > > >>> > > >>>> as such. I think we should consider building a different package and > > >>>> installing them separately. Personally, for development and > testing, I > > >>>> don't use them. > > >>>> > > >>>> Since we're building RPMs and debian packages, the steps to install > an > > >>>> > > >>> add > > >>> > > >>>> on is roughly 20 keystrokes. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I believe I already voiced my opinion on this, but let me restate > it > > >>>>> > > >>>> since > > >>>> > > >>>>> the conversation is happening again. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Bundling the native library built with a "common" library is > easiest > > >>>>> > > >>>> and > > >>> > > >>>> I > > >>>> > > >>>>> believe makes the most sense. My opinion is that source files > should > > be > > >>>>> included in a source release and that a bin release doesn't include > > >>>>> > > >>>> source > > >>>> > > >>>>> files. Since we're specifically making this distinction by making > > these > > >>>>> releases, it doesn't make sense to me why we would decide "oh, well > > in > > >>>>> > > >>>> this > > >>>> > > >>>>> one case, the bin dist will actually have _some_ src files too." > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Is it not intuitive that if people need to rebuild something, that > > they > > >>>>> download a src dist (and bin) to start? :shrug: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >
