Good link Billie.
Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T -----Original message----- From: Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Sent: Fri, May 17, 2013 21:39:44 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release? 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: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > >
