Hi, I think we all agree that our project benefits from providing pre-compiled binaries for different hadoop distributions.
I've drafted an extension of the current download page, that I would suggest to use after the release: http://i.imgur.com/MucW2HD.png As you can see, users can directly pick the Flink version they want (its not going to show the CDH4 package there) or they can choose from the table with the most popular (in my opinion) vendor distributions. The different links still point to the "hadoop1", "hadoop2" binaries, but I don't think this is highlighting any hadoop vendors. What do you think? On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah sorry Alan, did not see your reply to Owen. > > Mea culpa from me. > > - Henry > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Alan Gates <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry, apparently this was unclear, as others asked the same question. > > Flink hasn't had any Apache releases yet. I was referring to the > proposed > > release that Robert sent out, > > http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-0.6-incubating-rc7/ > > > > Alan. > > > > Sean Owen <[email protected]> > > August 15, 2014 at 11:26 AM > > PS, sorry for being dense, but I don't see vendor packages at > > http://flink.incubator.apache.org/downloads.html ? > > > > Is it this page? > > http://flink.incubator.apache.org/docs/0.6-SNAPSHOT/building.html > > > > That's more benign, just helping people rebuild for certain distros if > > desired. Can the example be generified to refer to a fictional "ACME > > Distribution"? But a note here and there about gotchas building for > > certain versions and combos seems reasonable. > > > > I also find this bit in the build script, although vendor-specific, is > > a small nice convenience for users: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-flink/blob/master/pom.xml#L195 > > Owen O'Malley <[email protected]> > > August 15, 2014 at 11:01 AM > > As a mentor, I agree that vendor specific packages aren't appropriate for > > the Apache site. (Disclosure: I work at Hortonworks.) Working with the > > vendors to make packages available is great, but they shouldn't be hosted > > at Apache. > > > > .. Owen > > > > > > > > Sean Owen <[email protected]> > > August 15, 2014 at 10:32 AM > > I hope not surprisingly, I agree. (Backstory: I am at Cloudera.) I > > have for example lobbied Spark to remove CDH-specific releases and > > build profiles. Not just for this reason, but because it is often > > unnecessary to have vendor-specific builds, and also just increases > > maintenance overhead for the project. > > > > Matei et al say they want to make it as easy as possible to consume > > Spark, and so provide vendor-build-specific artifacts and such here > > and there. To be fair, Spark tries to support a large range of Hadoop > > and YARN versions, and getting the right combination of profiles and > > versions right to recreate a vendor release was kind of hard until > > about Hadoop 2.2 (stable YARN really). > > > > I haven't heard of any formal policy. I would ask whether there are > > similar reasons to produce pre-packaged releases like so? > > > > Alan Gates <[email protected]> > > August 15, 2014 at 10:24 AM > > Let me begin by noting that I obviously have a conflict of interest > since > > my company is a direct competitor to Cloudera. But as a mentor and > Apache > > member I believe I need to bring this up. > > > > What is the Apache policy towards having a vendor specific package on a > > download site? It is strange to me to come to Flink's website and see > > packages for Flink with CDH (or HDP or MapR or whatever). We should > avoid > > providing vendor specific packages. It gives the appearance of > preferring > > one vendor over another, which Apache does not want to do. > > > > I have no problem at all with Cloudera hosting a CDH specific package of > > Flink, nor with Flink project members working with Cloudera to create > such > > a package. But I do not think they should be hosted at Apache. > > > > Alan. > > > > > > -- > > Sent with Postbox <http://www.getpostbox.com> > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > > to which it is addressed and may contain information that is > confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > immediately > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > >
