I stand corrected. Thanks for the link, Billie. Looks like we should also remove the .so file from the -src.tar.gz lest we risk having our project deleted.
Adam On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Billie Rinaldi <[email protected]>wrote: > On May 17, 2013 5:13 PM, "Adam Fuchs" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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 < > > > > >>> [email protected]**> 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 < > [email protected] > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> 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: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >
