Re: Build system discussion for Arrow (and Orc?)
I wanted to rekindle this discussion so that we can resolve these
issues before Arrow 0.10.0 is released. Can you let us know what needs
to be changed or submit a PR? I have a PR coming in for ARROW-902
shortly (offline builds), and I think it would be a good idea to
enable all third party dependencies to use dynamic linking if the user
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +1. Definitely do open JIRAs to describe the issue(s) you are having,
> even if you do not intend to patch them yourself. The ORC issue may
> need to be patched upstream in Apache ORC. We're happy to help spec
> out the work required to help make the builds / packaging less painful
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Uwe L. Korn <uwelk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hello Michael,
>>> 1. Is this a welcome change, or should we just carry patches locally?
>> These changes would be very welcome. The current vendoring approach exists for all dependencies mostly to get have a smooth development experience. It is not meant for releases. The current approach for ORC is mainly in this form as there are things missing to get to a smooth, non-vendored released binary.
>>> 2. Assuming change is welcome, what is the preferred method for submitting
>>> changes? Github PR(s)?
>> As mentioned above, they are very welcome. The preferred method is creating an issue in JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/ARROW and then opening a PR on github. The name of the PR should be prefixed with the issue. e.g. `ARROW-XXX: [Python] Better ORC packaging`