hi Michael, 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 so desired.
Thanks, Wes On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> 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 > > Thanks > Wes > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> 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` >> >> Uwe
