On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote:
> I had issues running a hadoop2 compiled version of accumulo against CDH4, I > can't remember the specifics of it though. > I would hope that would be due to Hadoop 2's alpha state. I guess we'll have to wait and see. > > When I said specialized packaging, I was thinking of a naming convention to > distinguish hadoop1 vs. hadoop2 ( vs. vendor-specific hadoop) compiled > jars. > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Billie Rinaldi <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > I'm not sure we are talking about actual vendor-specific code. We are > > deciding whether or not to create additional release tarballs that have > > been compiled against various vendors' Hadoop-compatible file systems. > > Assuming that we determine there is nothing prohibiting us from doing > this, > > I think it would simply be up to the release manager (i.e. anyone who > > assembles a release and calls a vote for it). If someone cares enough > > about a particular distribution to build and create an extra tarball, > they > > can. However, I don't think this is common for Apache projects -- > > additional packaging is usually left to supporting companies. I haven't > > even noticed any releases yet that come in Hadoop 1 and Hadoop 2 flavors. > > > > I haven't heard (until now) that Accumulo compiled against an appropriate > > version of Apache Hadoop will not work with CDH, but John says that's the > > case. John, have you tried this? Also, what is the "specialized > > packaging" you referred to? > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:32 PM, David Medinets > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Does it make sense to put vendor-specific stuff under a > contribs/vendors > > > directory? Doing so would certainly indicate that we are > vendor-agnostic. > > > And give vendors an obvious place to contribute. > > > > > >
