Hi, As a maintainer of Linux packages, I want apache/arrow-adbc to be released before apache/arrow is released so that apache/arrow's .deb/.rpm can depend on apache/arrow-adbc's .deb/.rpm.
(If Apache Arrow Dataset uses apache/arrow-adbc, apache/arrow's .deb/.rpm needs to depend on apache/arrow-adbc's .deb/.rpm.) We can add .deb/.rpm related files (dev/tasks/linux-packages/ in apache/arrow) to apache/arrow-adbc to build .deb/.rpm for apache/arrow-adbc. FYI: I did it for datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c: * https://github.com/datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c/tree/main/package * https://github.com/datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c/blob/main/.github/workflows/package.yaml I can work on it in apache/arrow-adbc. Thanks, -- kou In <5cbf2923-4fb4-4c5e-b11d-007209fdd...@www.fastmail.com> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Thu, 25 Aug 2022 11:51:08 -0400, "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > Fair enough, thank you. I'll try to expand a bit. (Sorry for the wall of text > that follows…) > > These are the components: > > - Core adbc.h header > - Driver manager for C/C++ > - Flight SQL-based driver > - Postgres-based driver (WIP) > - SQLite-based driver (more of a testbed for me than an actual component - I > don't think we'd actually distribute this) > - Java core interfaces > - Java driver manager > - Java JDBC-based driver > - Java Flight SQL-based driver > - Python driver manager > > I think: adbc.h gets mirrored into the Arrow repo. The Flight SQL drivers get > moved to the main Arrow repo and distributed as part of the regular Arrow > releases. > > For the rest of the components: they could be packaged individually, but > versioned and released together. Also, each C/C++ driver probably needs a > corresponding Python package so Python users do not have to futz with shared > library configurations. (See [1].) So for instance, installing PyArrow would > also give you the Flight SQL driver, and `pip install adbc_postgres` would > get you the Postgres-based driver. > > That would mean setting up separate CI, release, etc. (and eventually linking > Crossbow & Conbench as well?). That does mean duplication of effort, but the > trade off is avoiding bloating the main release process even further. > However, I'd like to hear from those closer to the release process on this > subject - if it would make people's lives easier, we could merge everything > into one repo/process. > > Integrations would be distributed as part of their respective packages (e.g. > Arrow Dataset would optionally link to the driver manager). So the "part of > Arrow 10.0.0" aspect means having a stable interface for adbc.h, and getting > the Flight SQL drivers into the main repo. > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/53 > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022, at 11:34, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 14:09:44 -0400 >> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Since it's been a while, I'd like to give an update. There are also a few >>> questions I have around distribution. >>> >>> Currently: >>> - Supported in C, Java, and Python. >>> - For C/Python, there are basic drivers wrapping Flight SQL and SQLite, >>> with a draft of a libpq (Postgres) driver (using nanoarrow). >>> - For Java, there are drivers wrapping JDBC and Flight SQL. >>> - For Python, there's low-level bindings to the C API, and the DBAPI >>> interface on top of that (+a few extension methods resembling >>> DuckDB/Turbodbc). >>> >>> There's drafts of integration with Ibis [1], DBI (R), and DuckDB. (I'd like >>> to thank Hannes and Kirill for their comments, as well as Antoine, Dewey, >>> and Matt here.) >>> >>> I'd like to have this as part of 10.0.0 in some fashion. However, I'm not >>> sure how we would like to handle packaging and distribution. In particular, >>> there are several sub-components for each language (the driver manager + >>> the drivers), increasing the work. Any thoughts here? >> >> Sorry, forgot to answer here. But I think your question is too broadly >> formulated. It probably deserves a case-by-case discussion, IMHO. >> >>> I'm also wondering how we want to handle this in terms of specification - I >>> assume we'd consider the core header file/Java interfaces a spec like the C >>> Data Interface/Flight RPC, and vote on them/mirror them into the format/ >>> directory? >> >> That sounds like the right way to me indeed. >> >> Regards >> >> Antoine.
