Cool. Thanks Jesse, Stack, and Gary. I filed a ticket to do so... And probably mess up the pom horribly until somebody shows me how to it.
-- Lars ________________________________ From: Gary Helmling <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:04 AM Subject: Re: 0.94 non-secure tarballs +1, seems fine to eliminate the non-secure builds now. The main reason for doing security as a separate profile was to make it possible to continue to build and run HBase on a pre-1.0 Hadoop (Hadoop without the security classes referenced in the HBase security code). We don't even have a profile for a non-secure Hadoop anymore, so I can't see this being an issue any longer. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Jesse Yates <[email protected]>wrote: > +1 > > Might need a good set of documentation the first couple times, but seems > reasonable. > On Mar 26, 2014 9:04 PM, "lars hofhansl" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am thinking to stop releasing the tarballs without the security code. > > They do not really add anything, the secure tarballs work perfectly OK > > without security. The secure builds just have some source and class > files. > > > > I would also get rid of the non-secure build completely and just have one > > way to build HBase. > > > > Any objections? Are there any other reasons to build both a secure and > > non-secure tarball? Export restrictions, or anything? > > > > I think that would also make it trivial to release the secure bits to > > maven (but maven is black magic to me, so I do not know for sure). > > > > -- Lars >
