As an Accumulo user, the thing I want most is a single package that contains the things I need to set up a running instance. I don't want to build the whole thing from source, but I am happy to build the native map, unless every possible architecture is going to be distributed. I really don't care at all whether the tarball name ends in "-bin" or "-package" or "-theStuffYouWant". If the only reason not to include the native map sources in the binary release is because the filename ends in -bin, why not just call it accumulo-1.5.0.tar.gz?
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > If we're going to be making binary releases that have no other mechanism > for creating the native libraries, then we should probably cut a few > different binary releases for x86, amd64, and darwin at the very least. > > Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. > On May 17, 2013 12:36 PM, "Josh Elser" <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm happy we're stating our opinions here, but there are also two other > > people who believe that the bin should not contain it. That's nice that > you > > want source code in a binary release, but your opinion is not the only > one. > > I feel like you're telling me that my opinion is sub-par to your opinion > > because it is. > > > > If this is such a sticking point, I move that we completely kill the > > notion of source and binary releases and make one tarball that contains > > both. > > > > On 5/17/13 3:17 PM, John Vines wrote: > > > >> I agree with Adam. It seems like it's a debate of consistency vs. > >> pragmatism. The cost of including these libraries are all of maybe 1kb > in > >> the package. The cost of excluding them is potential frustration from > end > >> users and a lot of repetitive stress against the Apache Mirrors (lets > try > >> and be considerate). I think it's a no brainer, but I have yet to here a > >> reason that is not 'no source code in a binary release!' > >> > >> > >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Adam Fuchs <afu...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Just to solidify the decision that Chris is already leaning towards, > let > >>> me > >>> try to clarify my position: > >>> 1. The only reason not to add the native library source code in the > >>> -bin.tar.gz distribution is that src != bin. There is no measurable > >>> negative effect of putting the cpp files and Makefile into the > >>> -bin.tar.gz. > >>> 2. At least one person wants the native library source code in the > >>> -bin.tar.gz to make their life easier. > >>> > >>> This is a very simple decision. It really doesn't matter how easy it is > >>> to > >>> include prebuilt native code in some other way or build the code and > copy > >>> it in using some other method. Those are all tangential arguments. > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM, William Slacum < > >>> wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net**> wrote: > >>> > >>> I think of the native maps as an add on and they should probably be > >>>> > >>> treated > >>> > >>>> as such. I think we should consider building a different package and > >>>> installing them separately. Personally, for development and testing, I > >>>> don't use them. > >>>> > >>>> Since we're building RPMs and debian packages, the steps to install an > >>>> > >>> add > >>> > >>>> on is roughly 20 keystrokes. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> > >>>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I believe I already voiced my opinion on this, but let me restate it > >>>>> > >>>> since > >>>> > >>>>> the conversation is happening again. > >>>>> > >>>>> Bundling the native library built with a "common" library is easiest > >>>>> > >>>> and > >>> > >>>> I > >>>> > >>>>> believe makes the most sense. My opinion is that source files should > be > >>>>> included in a source release and that a bin release doesn't include > >>>>> > >>>> source > >>>> > >>>>> files. Since we're specifically making this distinction by making > these > >>>>> releases, it doesn't make sense to me why we would decide "oh, well > in > >>>>> > >>>> this > >>>> > >>>>> one case, the bin dist will actually have _some_ src files too." > >>>>> > >>>>> Is it not intuitive that if people need to rebuild something, that > they > >>>>> download a src dist (and bin) to start? :shrug: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >
