On 2/25/10 8:39 AM, "Thomas Koch" wrote:
>>> - no version namespace, everything is called just "hadoop", not
>>> "hadoop-0.18" or "hadoop-0.20" as in the cloudera package
>>
>> ... and thus making upgrades really hard and not suitable for anything
>> "real".
> Actually my hope is in the plan o
On Feb 25, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
Actually my hope is in the plan of hadoop to once establish a
stable API (as
planned) so that an upgrade will be backwards compatible.
History shows you are in for a long wait.
I hope not and I'm trying to make sure that isn't true. At
Allen,
> For all intents and purposes, the Debian package sounds just like a
> re-packaging of the Apache distribution in .deb form.
You're perfectly right. Most Debian packages are "just" a re-packaging of the
upstream projects, but with additional management information and logic to
ease the i
On 2/24/10 4:45 AM, "Thomas Koch" wrote:
> There'll shortly be a third alternative:
There are already three:
- Apache
- Cloudera
- Yahoo!
and with several others in development.
For all intents and purposes, the Debian package sounds just like a
re-packaging of the Apache distribution in .d
Ananth,
> Just wanted to get the groups general feelings on what the preferred distro
> is and why? Obviously assuming one didn't have a service agreement with
> cloudera.
There'll shortly be a third alternative: The debian package of hadoop is in
the Debian new queue[1] and will hopefully pass it
