The expectation that downloading it, untar'ing it, and running it without compiling *does* (or should... that's what we're supposed to be reviewing) work with the -bin that was produced. What you're expecting to also work is one particular add-on feature that requires compilation from source to work, as an optimization.
The -bin that has been produced is arch-dependent, and provided for x86_64, el6-compatible convenience. There is *nothing* to stop anybody from rolling another similar -bin package that is for a different architecture or target OS. Now, perhaps we should seriously consider simply omitting the native maps add-on from the binary package entirely, so that our binary packaging is noarch, and providing separate arch-dependent binary distributions of those that need it (this is actually something I had hoped to accomplish for 1.6). -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Michael Allen <mich...@sqrrl.com> wrote: > Just a quick weigh in here: > > As a user of open source software, I have no expectation that a file called > "-bin" have zero source code in it. What I expect is that I should be able > to download a thing called "-bin", untar it and run it without having to do > a compile. To make it run *fast*, I would expect to do "something else" > where that might be compiling something or configuring something. I would > *not* expect that a *common* way to make something run fast be included in > something *else* that I have to download. That just makes me think that > the people that put this "-bin" together for me wanted me to jump through > extra hoops to make it run right. > > To William's point about seeing a Makefile and thinking I have to build > something to make it work: I don't think the Makefile is at the top level > directory, right? Given that, I might never see it unless I go poking > around for it (or find instructions that direct me to it). > > - Mike > > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Adam Fuchs <afu...@apache.org> wrote: > >> 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: >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > >>
