Thanks for that link, Billie. It was informative. >From that, it seems clear that what we should focus on, is voting on, when it comes to binary packages, is the *ability* of the source tarball to produce the binaries that we wish it to produce, since it is only the source package that we are voting on for the purposes of a release. It does seem that presently, (aside from not including *.dylib, which I think somebody mentioned), the source package is capable of producing the binaries we wish it to.
These are a separate issue from the convenience binaries we *happen to have produced* with that source. (which I think is still good to have consensus on, but should not be the primary issue of holding up a release). These are really gravy (perhaps very delicious gravy, but still gravy). -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 17, 2013 5:13 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. > > In lieu of ranting myself, I'll point you here: http://s.apache.org/nnN > > Billie > >> >> 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: >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> >
