You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@brooklyn.apache.org by Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> on 2018/12/12 16:58:11 UTC
Build depends on Docker
All,
The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker instance. This
I did not know.
The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which invokes Docker
during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to connect to a
non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
This presents a few discussion points...
What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and it seems that
it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution and starts
Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to that image? Is it
local to my computer?
Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me this seems
unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think it's
reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of Brooklyn.
We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we not be? Is it
even possible for us to do that in Apache?
Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to brooklyn-dist
were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2 instances and
never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed which has
kicked this into life?
brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still something
important, then firstly it needs moved to another project (hopefully one
exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the Karaf distribution.
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Thanks!
Richard.
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>.
I've made a start on a PR for this, will try to get something out soonish,
but can't do more on it tonight - off to a Christmas party!
G
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 16:24 Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'll go out on a limb here and suggest we disable it by default - let's go
> with Alex's suggestion of a profile to build the image, with the default
> build being NOT to build with that profile, so you would have to do
> something like
>
> mvn clean install -DdockerImage
>
> to build the image.
>
> any +1s?
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 10:33 Thomas Bouron <th...@cloudsoft.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Geoff, all.
>>
>> To recap what this is doing: it builds a docker image that launches
>> Brooklyn. It actually wraps the RPM that maven builds, and packages that
>> as
>> a Docker image.
>> Now, I merged this and when testing, I noticed[1] that the plugin used to
>> build the docker image can be disabled with one of their own flag[2],
>> namely `-DskipDocker`. This is why I didn't ask the contributor for a
>> maven
>> profile.
>>
>> If you think that is not enough, we could definitely disable this by
>> default. But I think this is useful, and a much easier way for new people
>> to get started with Brooklyn (instead of vagrant).
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118#issuecomment-435649038
>> [2]
>>
>> https://github.com/spotify/docker-maven-plugin#bind-docker-commands-to-maven-phases
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 08:55 Alex Heneveld <
>> alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The README in
>> the
>> > master project describes these.
>> >
>> > Best
>> > Alex
>> >
>> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > We added this in https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118,
>> but I
>> > > do
>> > > dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone should
>> be
>> > > able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about Docker.
>> > Could
>> > > we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a separate
>> shell
>> > > script that you would run manually to build the image? And yes it
>> should
>> > > use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
>> > >
>> > > Geoff
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > All,
>> > > >
>> > > > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker
>> instance.
>> > > This
>> > > > I did not know.
>> > > >
>> > > > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
>> > > > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which invokes
>> > > Docker
>> > > > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to
>> connect
>> > to
>> > > a
>> > > > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
>> > > >
>> > > > This presents a few discussion points...
>> > > >
>> > > > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and it seems
>> > that
>> > > > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution and
>> starts
>> > > > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to that
>> image?
>> > Is
>> > > it
>> > > > local to my computer?
>> > > >
>> > > > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me this seems
>> > > > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think it's
>> > > > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of Brooklyn.
>> > > >
>> > > > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we not be?
>> Is
>> > it
>> > > > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
>> > > >
>> > > > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to
>> > brooklyn-dist
>> > > > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2
>> instances
>> > > and
>> > > > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed which
>> has
>> > > > kicked this into life?
>> > > >
>> > > > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still
>> something
>> > > > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project (hopefully
>> > one
>> > > > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the Karaf
>> > > > distribution.
>> > > >
>> > > > Can anyone shed some light on this?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks!
>> > > >
>> > > > Richard.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> --
>> Thomas Bouron
>> Senior Software Engineer
>>
>> *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
>>
>> GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
>>
>> Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
>>
>
Re: Build depends on Docker - and Happy New Year :-)
Posted by Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
After a hiatus for Christmas I've updated the PR for the above
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/136 to take account of
Richard's comment about having a separate directory.
And while I'm here I'll just wish you all a very Happy New Year! All the
best for 2019.
Geoff
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 15:29 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yes I think I'd definitely prefer this. The new UI has brought in lots of
> new build prerequisites so there's actually quite a lot you need to do to
> get a Brooklyn build today. Since all these extra build packages require
> special tooling, and are going to be unused by most people, I'm happy for
> them to be opt-in.
>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 11:49, Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I guess we don't *have* to be consistent, or rather we can consistently
> > stick to the principle of making life as easy as possible for users. But
> I
> > do like the thought of people being able to build and try Brooklyn with
> as
> > few hoops to jump through as possible, so:
> >
> > I would certainly stick with opt-in for things that are convenience
> > features but not part of Brooklyn (e.g. Docker image).
> > RPM/DEB is normally going to be needed by us when doing releases, so
> > probably handiest to opt-in
> > Go installation is easy enough but is still a whole extra step for people
> > to set up, so, hmm, maybe I'd opt-in for that too!
> >
> > Then we can change our Build Basics instructions
> > https://brooklyn.apache.org/v/latest/dev/env/maven-build.html to
> something
> > like
> >
> > To build the Brooklyn server just requires the following software to
> be
> > installed:
> >
> > Maven (v3.1+)
> > Java (v1.7+, 1.8 recommended)
> >
> > With these in place, you should be able to build with a:
> > mvn clean install
> >
> > To build all of Brooklyn including the "br" command line client and
> > RPM/DEB packages, and additionally to build a convenient Docker image,
> you
> > will also need
> >
> > Go (v1.6+)
> > rpm/deb tools
> > Docker
> >
> > With these in place, you can build including all of these features
> > with:
> > mvn clean install -Dgo-client -Drpm -Ddeb -Ddocker
> >
> >
> > I think I quite like that.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 10:09 Thomas Bouron <th...@cloudsoft.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Geoff.
> > >
> > > The PR looks good but creates an inconsistency between the binaries:
> > > RPM/DEB and Go client are all opt-out whereas the docker build is
> opt-in.
> > > Whatever route we go, I think we should be consistent across the board.
> > >
> > > Since people seems ok with an opt-in solution for the different
> > binaries, I
> > > would be happy to follow the majority.
> > >
> > > Best.
> > >
> > > On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 at 22:51 Geoff Macartney <
> geoff.macartney@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Have raised https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/136, let me
> > > know
> > > > what you think
> > > >
> > > > G
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 17:34 Paul Campbell <
> paul.campbell@cloudsoft.io
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 to only build docker image when profile is activated
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 16:34 Geoff Macartney <
> > geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'll go out on a limb here and suggest we disable it by default -
> > > let's
> > > > > go
> > > > > > with Alex's suggestion of a profile to build the image, with the
> > > > default
> > > > > > build being NOT to build with that profile, so you would have to
> do
> > > > > > something like
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mvn clean install -DdockerImage
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to build the image.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > any +1s?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 10:33 Thomas Bouron <
> > > thomas.bouron@cloudsoft.io
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Geoff, all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To recap what this is doing: it builds a docker image that
> > launches
> > > > > > > Brooklyn. It actually wraps the RPM that maven builds, and
> > packages
> > > > > that
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > a Docker image.
> > > > > > > Now, I merged this and when testing, I noticed[1] that the
> plugin
> > > > used
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > build the docker image can be disabled with one of their own
> > > flag[2],
> > > > > > > namely `-DskipDocker`. This is why I didn't ask the contributor
> > > for a
> > > > > > maven
> > > > > > > profile.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you think that is not enough, we could definitely disable
> this
> > > by
> > > > > > > default. But I think this is useful, and a much easier way for
> > new
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > to get started with Brooklyn (instead of vagrant).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118#issuecomment-435649038
> > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/spotify/docker-maven-plugin#bind-docker-commands-to-maven-phases
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 08:55 Alex Heneveld <
> > > > > > > alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The
> > > > README
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > master project describes these.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <
> > > > > geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We added this in
> > > > https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118,
> > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO
> anyone
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything
> about
> > > > > Docker.
> > > > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > > > we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > shell
> > > > > > > > > script that you would run manually to build the image? And
> > yes
> > > it
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Geoff
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <
> > > richard@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working
> > Docker
> > > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > I did not know.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project,
> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin`
> which
> > > > > invokes
> > > > > > > > > Docker
> > > > > > > > > > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it
> tries
> > to
> > > > > > connect
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This presents a few discussion points...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there
> and
> > > it
> > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn
> distribution
> > > and
> > > > > > > starts
> > > > > > > > > > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to
> > > that
> > > > > > image?
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > local to my computer?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me
> > > this
> > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't
> > think
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of
> > > Brooklyn.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should
> we
> > > not
> > > > > be?
> > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this
> to
> > > > > > > > brooklyn-dist
> > > > > > > > > > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean
> > EC2
> > > > > > > instances
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something
> > changed
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > kicked this into life?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is
> still
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project
> > > > > > (hopefully
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the
> > > Karaf
> > > > > > > > > > distribution.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can anyone shed some light on this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Thomas Bouron
> > > > > > > Senior Software Engineer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the
> > > Cloud
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
> > > > > > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Bouron
> > > Senior Software Engineer
> > >
> > > *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
> > >
> > > GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
> > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> > >
> > > Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>.
Yes I think I'd definitely prefer this. The new UI has brought in lots of
new build prerequisites so there's actually quite a lot you need to do to
get a Brooklyn build today. Since all these extra build packages require
special tooling, and are going to be unused by most people, I'm happy for
them to be opt-in.
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 11:49, Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I guess we don't *have* to be consistent, or rather we can consistently
> stick to the principle of making life as easy as possible for users. But I
> do like the thought of people being able to build and try Brooklyn with as
> few hoops to jump through as possible, so:
>
> I would certainly stick with opt-in for things that are convenience
> features but not part of Brooklyn (e.g. Docker image).
> RPM/DEB is normally going to be needed by us when doing releases, so
> probably handiest to opt-in
> Go installation is easy enough but is still a whole extra step for people
> to set up, so, hmm, maybe I'd opt-in for that too!
>
> Then we can change our Build Basics instructions
> https://brooklyn.apache.org/v/latest/dev/env/maven-build.html to something
> like
>
> To build the Brooklyn server just requires the following software to be
> installed:
>
> Maven (v3.1+)
> Java (v1.7+, 1.8 recommended)
>
> With these in place, you should be able to build with a:
> mvn clean install
>
> To build all of Brooklyn including the "br" command line client and
> RPM/DEB packages, and additionally to build a convenient Docker image, you
> will also need
>
> Go (v1.6+)
> rpm/deb tools
> Docker
>
> With these in place, you can build including all of these features
> with:
> mvn clean install -Dgo-client -Drpm -Ddeb -Ddocker
>
>
> I think I quite like that.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 10:09 Thomas Bouron <th...@cloudsoft.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Geoff.
> >
> > The PR looks good but creates an inconsistency between the binaries:
> > RPM/DEB and Go client are all opt-out whereas the docker build is opt-in.
> > Whatever route we go, I think we should be consistent across the board.
> >
> > Since people seems ok with an opt-in solution for the different
> binaries, I
> > would be happy to follow the majority.
> >
> > Best.
> >
> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 at 22:51 Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Have raised https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/136, let me
> > know
> > > what you think
> > >
> > > G
> > >
> > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 17:34 Paul Campbell <paul.campbell@cloudsoft.io
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 to only build docker image when profile is activated
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 16:34 Geoff Macartney <
> geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'll go out on a limb here and suggest we disable it by default -
> > let's
> > > > go
> > > > > with Alex's suggestion of a profile to build the image, with the
> > > default
> > > > > build being NOT to build with that profile, so you would have to do
> > > > > something like
> > > > >
> > > > > mvn clean install -DdockerImage
> > > > >
> > > > > to build the image.
> > > > >
> > > > > any +1s?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 10:33 Thomas Bouron <
> > thomas.bouron@cloudsoft.io
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Geoff, all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To recap what this is doing: it builds a docker image that
> launches
> > > > > > Brooklyn. It actually wraps the RPM that maven builds, and
> packages
> > > > that
> > > > > as
> > > > > > a Docker image.
> > > > > > Now, I merged this and when testing, I noticed[1] that the plugin
> > > used
> > > > to
> > > > > > build the docker image can be disabled with one of their own
> > flag[2],
> > > > > > namely `-DskipDocker`. This is why I didn't ask the contributor
> > for a
> > > > > maven
> > > > > > profile.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you think that is not enough, we could definitely disable this
> > by
> > > > > > default. But I think this is useful, and a much easier way for
> new
> > > > people
> > > > > > to get started with Brooklyn (instead of vagrant).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118#issuecomment-435649038
> > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/spotify/docker-maven-plugin#bind-docker-commands-to-maven-phases
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 08:55 Alex Heneveld <
> > > > > > alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The
> > > README
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > master project describes these.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <
> > > > geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We added this in
> > > https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118,
> > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about
> > > > Docker.
> > > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > > we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a
> > > separate
> > > > > > shell
> > > > > > > > script that you would run manually to build the image? And
> yes
> > it
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Geoff
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <
> > richard@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working
> Docker
> > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > I did not know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project,
> > which
> > > > > > > > > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which
> > > > invokes
> > > > > > > > Docker
> > > > > > > > > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries
> to
> > > > > connect
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This presents a few discussion points...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and
> > it
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution
> > and
> > > > > > starts
> > > > > > > > > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to
> > that
> > > > > image?
> > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > local to my computer?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me
> > this
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't
> think
> > > it's
> > > > > > > > > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of
> > Brooklyn.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we
> > not
> > > > be?
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to
> > > > > > > brooklyn-dist
> > > > > > > > > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean
> EC2
> > > > > > instances
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something
> changed
> > > > which
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > kicked this into life?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still
> > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project
> > > > > (hopefully
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the
> > Karaf
> > > > > > > > > distribution.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can anyone shed some light on this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thomas Bouron
> > > > > > Senior Software Engineer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the
> > Cloud
> > > > > >
> > > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
> > > > > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > Thomas Bouron
> > Senior Software Engineer
> >
> > *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
> >
> > GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
> > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> >
> > Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
> >
>
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>.
I guess we don't *have* to be consistent, or rather we can consistently
stick to the principle of making life as easy as possible for users. But I
do like the thought of people being able to build and try Brooklyn with as
few hoops to jump through as possible, so:
I would certainly stick with opt-in for things that are convenience
features but not part of Brooklyn (e.g. Docker image).
RPM/DEB is normally going to be needed by us when doing releases, so
probably handiest to opt-in
Go installation is easy enough but is still a whole extra step for people
to set up, so, hmm, maybe I'd opt-in for that too!
Then we can change our Build Basics instructions
https://brooklyn.apache.org/v/latest/dev/env/maven-build.html to something
like
To build the Brooklyn server just requires the following software to be
installed:
Maven (v3.1+)
Java (v1.7+, 1.8 recommended)
With these in place, you should be able to build with a:
mvn clean install
To build all of Brooklyn including the "br" command line client and
RPM/DEB packages, and additionally to build a convenient Docker image, you
will also need
Go (v1.6+)
rpm/deb tools
Docker
With these in place, you can build including all of these features with:
mvn clean install -Dgo-client -Drpm -Ddeb -Ddocker
I think I quite like that.
Geoff
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 10:09 Thomas Bouron <th...@cloudsoft.io>
wrote:
> Hi Geoff.
>
> The PR looks good but creates an inconsistency between the binaries:
> RPM/DEB and Go client are all opt-out whereas the docker build is opt-in.
> Whatever route we go, I think we should be consistent across the board.
>
> Since people seems ok with an opt-in solution for the different binaries, I
> would be happy to follow the majority.
>
> Best.
>
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 at 22:51 Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Have raised https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/136, let me
> know
> > what you think
> >
> > G
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 17:34 Paul Campbell <pa...@cloudsoft.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to only build docker image when profile is activated
> > >
> > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 16:34 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll go out on a limb here and suggest we disable it by default -
> let's
> > > go
> > > > with Alex's suggestion of a profile to build the image, with the
> > default
> > > > build being NOT to build with that profile, so you would have to do
> > > > something like
> > > >
> > > > mvn clean install -DdockerImage
> > > >
> > > > to build the image.
> > > >
> > > > any +1s?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 10:33 Thomas Bouron <
> thomas.bouron@cloudsoft.io
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Geoff, all.
> > > > >
> > > > > To recap what this is doing: it builds a docker image that launches
> > > > > Brooklyn. It actually wraps the RPM that maven builds, and packages
> > > that
> > > > as
> > > > > a Docker image.
> > > > > Now, I merged this and when testing, I noticed[1] that the plugin
> > used
> > > to
> > > > > build the docker image can be disabled with one of their own
> flag[2],
> > > > > namely `-DskipDocker`. This is why I didn't ask the contributor
> for a
> > > > maven
> > > > > profile.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you think that is not enough, we could definitely disable this
> by
> > > > > default. But I think this is useful, and a much easier way for new
> > > people
> > > > > to get started with Brooklyn (instead of vagrant).
> > > > >
> > > > > Best.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118#issuecomment-435649038
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/spotify/docker-maven-plugin#bind-docker-commands-to-maven-phases
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 08:55 Alex Heneveld <
> > > > > alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The
> > README
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > master project describes these.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best
> > > > > > Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <
> > > geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We added this in
> > https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118,
> > > > > but I
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about
> > > Docker.
> > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a
> > separate
> > > > > shell
> > > > > > > script that you would run manually to build the image? And yes
> it
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Geoff
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <
> richard@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker
> > > > > instance.
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > I did not know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project,
> which
> > > > > > > > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which
> > > invokes
> > > > > > > Docker
> > > > > > > > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to
> > > > connect
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This presents a few discussion points...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and
> it
> > > > seems
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution
> and
> > > > > starts
> > > > > > > > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to
> that
> > > > image?
> > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > local to my computer?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me
> this
> > > > seems
> > > > > > > > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think
> > it's
> > > > > > > > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of
> Brooklyn.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we
> not
> > > be?
> > > > Is
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to
> > > > > > brooklyn-dist
> > > > > > > > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2
> > > > > instances
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed
> > > which
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > kicked this into life?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still
> > > > something
> > > > > > > > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project
> > > > (hopefully
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the
> Karaf
> > > > > > > > distribution.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can anyone shed some light on this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thomas Bouron
> > > > > Senior Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the
> Cloud
> > > > >
> > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
> > > > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> > > > >
> > > > > Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --
> Thomas Bouron
> Senior Software Engineer
>
> *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
>
> Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
>
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Thomas Bouron <th...@cloudsoft.io>.
Hi Geoff.
The PR looks good but creates an inconsistency between the binaries:
RPM/DEB and Go client are all opt-out whereas the docker build is opt-in.
Whatever route we go, I think we should be consistent across the board.
Since people seems ok with an opt-in solution for the different binaries, I
would be happy to follow the majority.
Best.
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 at 22:51 Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Have raised https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/136, let me know
> what you think
>
> G
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 17:34 Paul Campbell <pa...@cloudsoft.io>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to only build docker image when profile is activated
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 16:34 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll go out on a limb here and suggest we disable it by default - let's
> > go
> > > with Alex's suggestion of a profile to build the image, with the
> default
> > > build being NOT to build with that profile, so you would have to do
> > > something like
> > >
> > > mvn clean install -DdockerImage
> > >
> > > to build the image.
> > >
> > > any +1s?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 10:33 Thomas Bouron <thomas.bouron@cloudsoft.io
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Geoff, all.
> > > >
> > > > To recap what this is doing: it builds a docker image that launches
> > > > Brooklyn. It actually wraps the RPM that maven builds, and packages
> > that
> > > as
> > > > a Docker image.
> > > > Now, I merged this and when testing, I noticed[1] that the plugin
> used
> > to
> > > > build the docker image can be disabled with one of their own flag[2],
> > > > namely `-DskipDocker`. This is why I didn't ask the contributor for a
> > > maven
> > > > profile.
> > > >
> > > > If you think that is not enough, we could definitely disable this by
> > > > default. But I think this is useful, and a much easier way for new
> > people
> > > > to get started with Brooklyn (instead of vagrant).
> > > >
> > > > Best.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118#issuecomment-435649038
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/spotify/docker-maven-plugin#bind-docker-commands-to-maven-phases
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 08:55 Alex Heneveld <
> > > > alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The
> README
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > master project describes these.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <
> > geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We added this in
> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118,
> > > > but I
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about
> > Docker.
> > > > > Could
> > > > > > we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a
> separate
> > > > shell
> > > > > > script that you would run manually to build the image? And yes it
> > > > should
> > > > > > use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Geoff
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker
> > > > instance.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > I did not know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
> > > > > > > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which
> > invokes
> > > > > > Docker
> > > > > > > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to
> > > connect
> > > > > to
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This presents a few discussion points...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and it
> > > seems
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution and
> > > > starts
> > > > > > > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to that
> > > image?
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > local to my computer?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me this
> > > seems
> > > > > > > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think
> it's
> > > > > > > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of Brooklyn.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we not
> > be?
> > > Is
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to
> > > > > brooklyn-dist
> > > > > > > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2
> > > > instances
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed
> > which
> > > > has
> > > > > > > kicked this into life?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still
> > > something
> > > > > > > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project
> > > (hopefully
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the Karaf
> > > > > > > distribution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can anyone shed some light on this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thomas Bouron
> > > > Senior Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
> > > >
> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
> > > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> > > >
> > > > Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Thomas Bouron
Senior Software Engineer
*Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>.
Duncan's point is a good one -
"So we opt out of building the go client, rpm build, and deb build. So this
is a bit inconsistent but I think I'd be happy to merge if a couple more
people respond to the email thread."
I was just thinking the same thing over the weekend - perhaps we should
reverse the logic we have at present for these, and allow users to build
Brooklyn without necessarily having to have Go, at least, and maybe even
rpm/deb (perhaps especially handy if they are on Windows)? It would be
easy to tweak release scripts to add the full set of build features back in.
What do you think?
G
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 at 22:51 Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Have raised https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/136, let me know
> what you think
>
> G
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 17:34 Paul Campbell <pa...@cloudsoft.io>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to only build docker image when profile is activated
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 16:34 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'll go out on a limb here and suggest we disable it by default - let's
>> go
>> > with Alex's suggestion of a profile to build the image, with the default
>> > build being NOT to build with that profile, so you would have to do
>> > something like
>> >
>> > mvn clean install -DdockerImage
>> >
>> > to build the image.
>> >
>> > any +1s?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 10:33 Thomas Bouron <th...@cloudsoft.io>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Geoff, all.
>> > >
>> > > To recap what this is doing: it builds a docker image that launches
>> > > Brooklyn. It actually wraps the RPM that maven builds, and packages
>> that
>> > as
>> > > a Docker image.
>> > > Now, I merged this and when testing, I noticed[1] that the plugin
>> used to
>> > > build the docker image can be disabled with one of their own flag[2],
>> > > namely `-DskipDocker`. This is why I didn't ask the contributor for a
>> > maven
>> > > profile.
>> > >
>> > > If you think that is not enough, we could definitely disable this by
>> > > default. But I think this is useful, and a much easier way for new
>> people
>> > > to get started with Brooklyn (instead of vagrant).
>> > >
>> > > Best.
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> > >
>> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118#issuecomment-435649038
>> > > [2]
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/spotify/docker-maven-plugin#bind-docker-commands-to-maven-phases
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 08:55 Alex Heneveld <
>> > > alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The
>> README in
>> > > the
>> > > > master project describes these.
>> > > >
>> > > > Best
>> > > > Alex
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <
>> geoff.macartney@gmail.com
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > We added this in https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118
>> ,
>> > > but I
>> > > > > do
>> > > > > dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone
>> should
>> > be
>> > > > > able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about
>> Docker.
>> > > > Could
>> > > > > we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a separate
>> > > shell
>> > > > > script that you would run manually to build the image? And yes it
>> > > should
>> > > > > use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Geoff
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > All,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker
>> > > instance.
>> > > > > This
>> > > > > > I did not know.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
>> > > > > > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which
>> invokes
>> > > > > Docker
>> > > > > > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to
>> > connect
>> > > > to
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > This presents a few discussion points...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and it
>> > seems
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution and
>> > > starts
>> > > > > > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to that
>> > image?
>> > > > Is
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > local to my computer?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me this
>> > seems
>> > > > > > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think
>> it's
>> > > > > > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of Brooklyn.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we not
>> be?
>> > Is
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to
>> > > > brooklyn-dist
>> > > > > > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2
>> > > instances
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed
>> which
>> > > has
>> > > > > > kicked this into life?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still
>> > something
>> > > > > > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project
>> > (hopefully
>> > > > one
>> > > > > > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the Karaf
>> > > > > > distribution.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Can anyone shed some light on this?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Richard.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > --
>> > > Thomas Bouron
>> > > Senior Software Engineer
>> > >
>> > > *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
>> > >
>> > > GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
>> > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
>> > >
>> > > Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>.
Have raised https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/136, let me know
what you think
G
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 17:34 Paul Campbell <pa...@cloudsoft.io>
wrote:
> +1 to only build docker image when profile is activated
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 16:34 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > I'll go out on a limb here and suggest we disable it by default - let's
> go
> > with Alex's suggestion of a profile to build the image, with the default
> > build being NOT to build with that profile, so you would have to do
> > something like
> >
> > mvn clean install -DdockerImage
> >
> > to build the image.
> >
> > any +1s?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 10:33 Thomas Bouron <th...@cloudsoft.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Geoff, all.
> > >
> > > To recap what this is doing: it builds a docker image that launches
> > > Brooklyn. It actually wraps the RPM that maven builds, and packages
> that
> > as
> > > a Docker image.
> > > Now, I merged this and when testing, I noticed[1] that the plugin used
> to
> > > build the docker image can be disabled with one of their own flag[2],
> > > namely `-DskipDocker`. This is why I didn't ask the contributor for a
> > maven
> > > profile.
> > >
> > > If you think that is not enough, we could definitely disable this by
> > > default. But I think this is useful, and a much easier way for new
> people
> > > to get started with Brooklyn (instead of vagrant).
> > >
> > > Best.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118#issuecomment-435649038
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/spotify/docker-maven-plugin#bind-docker-commands-to-maven-phases
> > >
> > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 08:55 Alex Heneveld <
> > > alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The README
> in
> > > the
> > > > master project describes these.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <
> geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We added this in https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118,
> > > but I
> > > > > do
> > > > > dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone
> should
> > be
> > > > > able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about
> Docker.
> > > > Could
> > > > > we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a separate
> > > shell
> > > > > script that you would run manually to build the image? And yes it
> > > should
> > > > > use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Geoff
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker
> > > instance.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > I did not know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
> > > > > > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which
> invokes
> > > > > Docker
> > > > > > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to
> > connect
> > > > to
> > > > > a
> > > > > > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This presents a few discussion points...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and it
> > seems
> > > > that
> > > > > > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution and
> > > starts
> > > > > > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to that
> > image?
> > > > Is
> > > > > it
> > > > > > local to my computer?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me this
> > seems
> > > > > > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think it's
> > > > > > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of Brooklyn.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we not
> be?
> > Is
> > > > it
> > > > > > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to
> > > > brooklyn-dist
> > > > > > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2
> > > instances
> > > > > and
> > > > > > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed
> which
> > > has
> > > > > > kicked this into life?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still
> > something
> > > > > > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project
> > (hopefully
> > > > one
> > > > > > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the Karaf
> > > > > > distribution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can anyone shed some light on this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Bouron
> > > Senior Software Engineer
> > >
> > > *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
> > >
> > > GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
> > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> > >
> > > Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Paul Campbell <pa...@cloudsoft.io>.
+1 to only build docker image when profile is activated
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 16:34 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@gmail.com wrote:
> I'll go out on a limb here and suggest we disable it by default - let's go
> with Alex's suggestion of a profile to build the image, with the default
> build being NOT to build with that profile, so you would have to do
> something like
>
> mvn clean install -DdockerImage
>
> to build the image.
>
> any +1s?
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 10:33 Thomas Bouron <th...@cloudsoft.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Geoff, all.
> >
> > To recap what this is doing: it builds a docker image that launches
> > Brooklyn. It actually wraps the RPM that maven builds, and packages that
> as
> > a Docker image.
> > Now, I merged this and when testing, I noticed[1] that the plugin used to
> > build the docker image can be disabled with one of their own flag[2],
> > namely `-DskipDocker`. This is why I didn't ask the contributor for a
> maven
> > profile.
> >
> > If you think that is not enough, we could definitely disable this by
> > default. But I think this is useful, and a much easier way for new people
> > to get started with Brooklyn (instead of vagrant).
> >
> > Best.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118#issuecomment-435649038
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://github.com/spotify/docker-maven-plugin#bind-docker-commands-to-maven-phases
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 08:55 Alex Heneveld <
> > alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The README in
> > the
> > > master project describes these.
> > >
> > > Best
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We added this in https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118,
> > but I
> > > > do
> > > > dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone should
> be
> > > > able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about Docker.
> > > Could
> > > > we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a separate
> > shell
> > > > script that you would run manually to build the image? And yes it
> > should
> > > > use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > Geoff
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker
> > instance.
> > > > This
> > > > > I did not know.
> > > > >
> > > > > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
> > > > > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which invokes
> > > > Docker
> > > > > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to
> connect
> > > to
> > > > a
> > > > > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
> > > > >
> > > > > This presents a few discussion points...
> > > > >
> > > > > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and it
> seems
> > > that
> > > > > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution and
> > starts
> > > > > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to that
> image?
> > > Is
> > > > it
> > > > > local to my computer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me this
> seems
> > > > > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think it's
> > > > > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of Brooklyn.
> > > > >
> > > > > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we not be?
> Is
> > > it
> > > > > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to
> > > brooklyn-dist
> > > > > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2
> > instances
> > > > and
> > > > > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed which
> > has
> > > > > kicked this into life?
> > > > >
> > > > > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still
> something
> > > > > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project
> (hopefully
> > > one
> > > > > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the Karaf
> > > > > distribution.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can anyone shed some light on this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > Thomas Bouron
> > Senior Software Engineer
> >
> > *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
> >
> > GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
> > Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
> >
> > Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
> >
>
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>.
I'll go out on a limb here and suggest we disable it by default - let's go
with Alex's suggestion of a profile to build the image, with the default
build being NOT to build with that profile, so you would have to do
something like
mvn clean install -DdockerImage
to build the image.
any +1s?
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 10:33 Thomas Bouron <th...@cloudsoft.io>
wrote:
> Hi Geoff, all.
>
> To recap what this is doing: it builds a docker image that launches
> Brooklyn. It actually wraps the RPM that maven builds, and packages that as
> a Docker image.
> Now, I merged this and when testing, I noticed[1] that the plugin used to
> build the docker image can be disabled with one of their own flag[2],
> namely `-DskipDocker`. This is why I didn't ask the contributor for a maven
> profile.
>
> If you think that is not enough, we could definitely disable this by
> default. But I think this is useful, and a much easier way for new people
> to get started with Brooklyn (instead of vagrant).
>
> Best.
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118#issuecomment-435649038
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/spotify/docker-maven-plugin#bind-docker-commands-to-maven-phases
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 08:55 Alex Heneveld <
> alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The README in
> the
> > master project describes these.
> >
> > Best
> > Alex
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We added this in https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118,
> but I
> > > do
> > > dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone should be
> > > able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about Docker.
> > Could
> > > we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a separate
> shell
> > > script that you would run manually to build the image? And yes it
> should
> > > use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker
> instance.
> > > This
> > > > I did not know.
> > > >
> > > > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
> > > > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which invokes
> > > Docker
> > > > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to connect
> > to
> > > a
> > > > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
> > > >
> > > > This presents a few discussion points...
> > > >
> > > > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and it seems
> > that
> > > > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution and
> starts
> > > > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to that image?
> > Is
> > > it
> > > > local to my computer?
> > > >
> > > > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me this seems
> > > > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think it's
> > > > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of Brooklyn.
> > > >
> > > > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we not be? Is
> > it
> > > > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
> > > >
> > > > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to
> > brooklyn-dist
> > > > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2
> instances
> > > and
> > > > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed which
> has
> > > > kicked this into life?
> > > >
> > > > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still something
> > > > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project (hopefully
> > one
> > > > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the Karaf
> > > > distribution.
> > > >
> > > > Can anyone shed some light on this?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --
> Thomas Bouron
> Senior Software Engineer
>
> *Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
>
> Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
>
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Thomas Bouron <th...@cloudsoft.io>.
Hi Geoff, all.
To recap what this is doing: it builds a docker image that launches
Brooklyn. It actually wraps the RPM that maven builds, and packages that as
a Docker image.
Now, I merged this and when testing, I noticed[1] that the plugin used to
build the docker image can be disabled with one of their own flag[2],
namely `-DskipDocker`. This is why I didn't ask the contributor for a maven
profile.
If you think that is not enough, we could definitely disable this by
default. But I think this is useful, and a much easier way for new people
to get started with Brooklyn (instead of vagrant).
Best.
[1] https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118#issuecomment-435649038
[2]
https://github.com/spotify/docker-maven-plugin#bind-docker-commands-to-maven-phases
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 08:55 Alex Heneveld <al...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
wrote:
> It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The README in the
> master project describes these.
>
> Best
> Alex
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > We added this in https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118, but I
> > do
> > dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone should be
> > able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about Docker.
> Could
> > we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a separate shell
> > script that you would run manually to build the image? And yes it should
> > use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker instance.
> > This
> > > I did not know.
> > >
> > > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
> > > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which invokes
> > Docker
> > > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to connect
> to
> > a
> > > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
> > >
> > > This presents a few discussion points...
> > >
> > > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and it seems
> that
> > > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution and starts
> > > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to that image?
> Is
> > it
> > > local to my computer?
> > >
> > > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me this seems
> > > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think it's
> > > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of Brooklyn.
> > >
> > > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we not be? Is
> it
> > > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
> > >
> > > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to
> brooklyn-dist
> > > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2 instances
> > and
> > > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed which has
> > > kicked this into life?
> > >
> > > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still something
> > > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project (hopefully
> one
> > > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the Karaf
> > > distribution.
> > >
> > > Can anyone shed some light on this?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Richard.
> > >
> >
>
--
Thomas Bouron
Senior Software Engineer
*Cloudsoft <https://cloudsoft.io/> *| Bringing Business to the Cloud
GitHub: https://github.com/tbouron
Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron
Need a hand with AWS? Get a Free Consultation.
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Alex Heneveld <al...@cloudsoftcorp.com>.
It should have a mvn profile like rpm and the go cli IMO. The README in the
master project describes these.
Best
Alex
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 22:51 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macartney@gmail.com wrote:
> We added this in https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118, but I
> do
> dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone should be
> able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about Docker. Could
> we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a separate shell
> script that you would run manually to build the image? And yes it should
> use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
>
> Geoff
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker instance.
> This
> > I did not know.
> >
> > The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
> > incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which invokes
> Docker
> > during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to connect to
> a
> > non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
> >
> > This presents a few discussion points...
> >
> > What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and it seems that
> > it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution and starts
> > Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to that image? Is
> it
> > local to my computer?
> >
> > Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me this seems
> > unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think it's
> > reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of Brooklyn.
> >
> > We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we not be? Is it
> > even possible for us to do that in Apache?
> >
> > Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to brooklyn-dist
> > were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2 instances
> and
> > never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed which has
> > kicked this into life?
> >
> > brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still something
> > important, then firstly it needs moved to another project (hopefully one
> > exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the Karaf
> > distribution.
> >
> > Can anyone shed some light on this?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Richard.
> >
>
Re: Build depends on Docker
Posted by Geoff Macartney <ge...@gmail.com>.
We added this in https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/118, but I do
dislike having to have Docker to build Brooklyn. IMHO anyone should be
able to build and use Brooklyn without knowing anything about Docker. Could
we remove the image build from the mvn install and have a separate shell
script that you would run manually to build the image? And yes it should
use the karaf distro, didn't realise it doesn't.
Geoff
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker instance. This
> I did not know.
>
> The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
> incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which invokes Docker
> during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries to connect to a
> non-existent UNIX socket and the build fails.
>
> This presents a few discussion points...
>
> What exactly is it building? There's a Dockerfile there and it seems that
> it builds an image which contains the Brooklyn distribution and starts
> Brooklyn. I don't know much about Docker, what happens to that image? Is it
> local to my computer?
>
> Is it necessary to have the build depend on Docker? To me this seems
> unreasonable. Docker has a large footprint and I don't think it's
> reasonable to require it for a normal, local build of Brooklyn.
>
> We're not releasing Docker images. Should we be? Should we not be? Is it
> even possible for us to do that in Apache?
>
> Why haven't I seen this before? The changes to add this to brooklyn-dist
> were made in 2017. I've performed release builds on clean EC2 instances and
> never seen this. Was this dormant, and has something changed which has
> kicked this into life?
>
> brooklyn-dist is obsolete now. If the Docker build is still something
> important, then firstly it needs moved to another project (hopefully one
> exclusive to that task) and secondly it needs to use the Karaf
> distribution.
>
> Can anyone shed some light on this?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Richard.
>