I don't know, I really don't know. I think regenerating from x86 is best
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 at 09:34, Cheng Pan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > So what should we do for the ARM pb2 code for 3.5.0? Delete it or > regenerate it? > > Thanks, > Cheng Pan > > > > > On Mar 10, 2026, at 22:22, Edward Capriolo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > These jars are the bane of my existence. > > 1) The way hadoop gets packaged the audit tools that look at pom > > dependencies claim linkages to proto 2.5.0, this makes hadoop spark etc, > > all the downstream complain and audit owners look for remidiation.. > > > > 2) when i build on alpine, maven tries to download the plugins that > > download protobuf2.5 > > 2a) because of this I sometimes need to compile and install and ancient > > protoc on my system > > > > As you may know I have tried to introduce a newer generation protobuf > > plugin. It is working but not without challenges > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-11930 > > > > Once the Java 8 dominio topples we should knock out proto bug 3.5.0 next > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 8:02 AM Cheng Pan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I checked the trunk branch, the x86 generated pb source code does not > >> match the shipped version under arm-java. > >> > >> On M1 macOS, you can run `CPU_ARCH=x86_64 ./start-build-env.sh` to > >> leverage Rosetta2 to emulate x86 platform with 50% performance. > >> > >> Then compile the project(at least the hadoop-common module) and use > `diff` > >> command to compare those two files > >> ``` > >> $ ./mvnw clean install -DskipTests -pl > hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common > >> -am > >> $ diff > >> > hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/src/main/arm-java/org/apache/hadoop/ipc/protobuf/ProtobufRpcEngineProtos.java > >> > hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/target/generated-sources/java/org/apache/hadoop/ipc/protobuf/ProtobufRpcEngineProtos.java > >> ``` > >> > >> Here is my generated ProtobufRpcEngineProtos.java > >> > >> https://gist.github.com/pan3793/0ffd495736c9373a9d3c24a354eb6997 > >> > >> > >> From the JIRA, seems this only affected Ozone, and is likely already > fixed > >> by Ozone. So, safe to remove? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Cheng Pan > >> > >> > >> > >
