Andy,
Ah, ok that sounds reasonable. Some this would be similar to how the
security build used to have a "-security" suffix but for hadoop2 we'd have
something like a "-hadoop2" suffix instead.
Jon.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > I've gotten pinged by folks working on Apache Flume, a project that
> depends
> > directly upon hbase and hadoop hdfs jars about how to get the proper
> hbase
> > jars that work against hadoop 1.0 and hadoop 0.23/2.0.
> > Unfortunately, the transition from hadoop 1.0.0 to hadoop 0.23.x/2.0
> > requires hbase to be recompiled to run against the different hadoop
> > version. ("compile compatible" but not "binary compatible").
> >
> > Currently, we build and publish hbase jars compiled against hadoop 1.0.x.
> >
> > What is the right way to publish poms/jars for those who want use an
> hbase
> > jars compiled against hadoop 0.23/2.0? Is there a right way?
>
> This requires we add a version suffix for the Hadoop version used during
> build?
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein (via Tom White)
>
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// j...@cloudera.com
