You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@yetus.apache.org by Allen Wittenauer <aw...@effectivemachines.com> on 2017/05/31 18:39:50 UTC
Default Docker image fails to build
It looks like our default Docker image that we ship with Yetus is failing to build because it can’t download stuff from Oracle. Given that we probably should do at least something to fix it :), I thought it might be time to actually just upgrade the image completely. I’ve filed YETUS-512 which does the following:
* Switches the base OS to Ubuntu Xenial 16.04
* Removes all of the Oracle JDK bits
* Switches the JDK to OpenJDK 8 (Headless)
* Removes a bunch of hacks that are no longer necessary
As a result, this one builds significantly faster and is a tad bit smaller. If we think that’s too aggressive, then the alternative is to just remove the Oracle JDK7 bits from the current image. Either way, we’re looking at an incompatible/disruptive change.
Sidenote: I’m currently trying to go through all of the 0.5.0 open issues. My goal is to work towards a release relatively soon, but no promises. Haven’t decided yet whether I’m going to tackle some of the bigger issues yet.
Thanks.
Re: Default Docker image fails to build
Posted by suraj acharya <su...@gmail.com>.
Yes, the oracle article seems to be a bit loose on what is trying to be
achieved.
Change in the download policy has now broken a few of my scripts too :(
We can just use openjdk and unblock us for the time being. We will need to
have some decision before we release 0.5.0.
Just thinking : Does the ASF have an ORACLE idk distribution license by
chance and can we prebake it into our docker image?
If there is a jira, I can help with changing the idk in the docker file.
S
-Suraj Acharya
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Allen Wittenauer <aw...@effectivemachines.com>
wrote:
>
> Folks, we need to make a decision here. Currently, precommit for yetus
> itself is completely broken....
Re: Default Docker image fails to build
Posted by Sean Busbey <se...@gmail.com>.
let's use the easy path for the default yetus dockerfile. Sounds like
that's Ubuntu 16 and openjdk8.
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Allen Wittenauer
<aw...@effectivemachines.com> wrote:
>
> Folks, we need to make a decision here. Currently, precommit for yetus itself is completely broken....
--
Sean
Re: Default Docker image fails to build
Posted by Allen Wittenauer <aw...@effectivemachines.com>.
Folks, we need to make a decision here. Currently, precommit for yetus itself is completely broken....
Re: Default Docker image fails to build
Posted by Allen Wittenauer <aw...@effectivemachines.com>.
> On May 31, 2017, at 8:20 PM, Allen Wittenauer <aw...@effectivemachines.com> wrote:
>
>
> Another choice is Azul's JDK. But I'd need to do some reason on it. That may be one way to do both JDK7 and JDK8 on U16.04.
s,reason,research,g
Although I guess reason works too lol.
Re: Default Docker image fails to build
Posted by Allen Wittenauer <aw...@effectivemachines.com>.
> On May 31, 2017, at 7:44 PM, suraj acharya <su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am not a lawyer or familiar very well with licensing issues.
> The last time I was trying to deploy docker for another project I came
> across this :
> http://blog.takipi.com/running-java-on-docker-youre-breaking-the-law/.
Yup. I'm very much aware of this issue. This is one of the reasons why there isn't an "Apache Yetus Docker Image" available from docker hub. It's also the reason why Yetus does a build off of a Dockerfile... that file has the directions in it to download the JDK from Oracle, including the cookie acceptance. The ironic part is that by avoiding a binary and forcing the download, our stuff is now broken because Oracle changed how things get downloaded from their site. Can't win! :/
> I see a new blog by Oracle :
> https://blogs.oracle.com/developers/official-docker-image-for-oracle-java-and-the-openjdk-roadmap-for-containers
> .
Oh, I hadn't seen this one though. Thanks for passing it on!
But: Argh. Equating Puppet and Docker is ... not really understanding the problem scopes of those two projects.
> I would like it if these are taken into consideration before we try to
> release with Oracle JDK. Else, openjdk should be okay I guess.
FWIW, the current Dockerfile has both OpenJDK and Oracle's JDK. By switching entirely to OpenJDK, it pretty much removes any legal questions.
Another choice is Azul's JDK. But I'd need to do some reason on it. That may be one way to do both JDK7 and JDK8 on U16.04.
Re: Default Docker image fails to build
Posted by suraj acharya <su...@gmail.com>.
I am not a lawyer or familiar very well with licensing issues.
The last time I was trying to deploy docker for another project I came
across this :
http://blog.takipi.com/running-java-on-docker-youre-breaking-the-law/.
I see a new blog by Oracle :
https://blogs.oracle.com/developers/official-docker-image-for-oracle-java-and-the-openjdk-roadmap-for-containers
.
I would like it if these are taken into consideration before we try to
release with Oracle JDK. Else, openjdk should be okay I guess.
S
-Suraj Acharya
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ugh, frowny face.
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Allen Wittenauer
> <aw...@effectivemachines.com> wrote:
> >
> > I forgot to mention something here, which makes it a bit more of a
> nuanced decision. The default repos from Ubuntu are set up such that:
> >
> > OpenJDK 7 = 14.04 (Trusty)
> > OpenJDK 8 = 16.04 (Xenial)
> >
> > All of the “get 7 on 16.04” and “get 8 on 14.04” I’ve seen have
> not been… appealing. (“Figure out which deb you need, then…” or “add the
> trusty repos temporarily” or … yeah. Not good.)
> >
> >
> > So if we want to stick with 7, then that means sticking with
> Trusty.
> >
> >> On May 31, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd love a 0.5.0 release, FWIW.
> >>
> >> Would pulling down openjdk 7 artifacts go more reliably? That would
> >> presumably be a bit less disruptive than also jumping to jdk8.
> >>
> >> (for clarity, I don't think this is too aggressive, since the default
> >> is just an exemplar and folks could always roll their own.)
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Allen Wittenauer
> >> <aw...@effectivemachines.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It looks like our default Docker image that we ship with Yetus
> is failing to build because it can’t download stuff from Oracle. Given
> that we probably should do at least something to fix it :), I thought it
> might be time to actually just upgrade the image completely. I’ve filed
> YETUS-512 which does the following:
> >>>
> >>> * Switches the base OS to Ubuntu Xenial 16.04
> >>> * Removes all of the Oracle JDK bits
> >>> * Switches the JDK to OpenJDK 8 (Headless)
> >>> * Removes a bunch of hacks that are no longer necessary
> >>>
> >>> As a result, this one builds significantly faster and is a tad
> bit smaller. If we think that’s too aggressive, then the alternative is to
> just remove the Oracle JDK7 bits from the current image. Either way, we’re
> looking at an incompatible/disruptive change.
> >>>
> >>> Sidenote: I’m currently trying to go through all of the 0.5.0
> open issues. My goal is to work towards a release relatively soon, but no
> promises. Haven’t decided yet whether I’m going to tackle some of the
> bigger issues yet.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >
>
Re: Default Docker image fails to build
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>.
Ugh, frowny face.
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Allen Wittenauer
<aw...@effectivemachines.com> wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention something here, which makes it a bit more of a nuanced decision. The default repos from Ubuntu are set up such that:
>
> OpenJDK 7 = 14.04 (Trusty)
> OpenJDK 8 = 16.04 (Xenial)
>
> All of the “get 7 on 16.04” and “get 8 on 14.04” I’ve seen have not been… appealing. (“Figure out which deb you need, then…” or “add the trusty repos temporarily” or … yeah. Not good.)
>
>
> So if we want to stick with 7, then that means sticking with Trusty.
>
>> On May 31, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'd love a 0.5.0 release, FWIW.
>>
>> Would pulling down openjdk 7 artifacts go more reliably? That would
>> presumably be a bit less disruptive than also jumping to jdk8.
>>
>> (for clarity, I don't think this is too aggressive, since the default
>> is just an exemplar and folks could always roll their own.)
>>
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Allen Wittenauer
>> <aw...@effectivemachines.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks like our default Docker image that we ship with Yetus is failing to build because it can’t download stuff from Oracle. Given that we probably should do at least something to fix it :), I thought it might be time to actually just upgrade the image completely. I’ve filed YETUS-512 which does the following:
>>>
>>> * Switches the base OS to Ubuntu Xenial 16.04
>>> * Removes all of the Oracle JDK bits
>>> * Switches the JDK to OpenJDK 8 (Headless)
>>> * Removes a bunch of hacks that are no longer necessary
>>>
>>> As a result, this one builds significantly faster and is a tad bit smaller. If we think that’s too aggressive, then the alternative is to just remove the Oracle JDK7 bits from the current image. Either way, we’re looking at an incompatible/disruptive change.
>>>
>>> Sidenote: I’m currently trying to go through all of the 0.5.0 open issues. My goal is to work towards a release relatively soon, but no promises. Haven’t decided yet whether I’m going to tackle some of the bigger issues yet.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>
Re: Default Docker image fails to build
Posted by Allen Wittenauer <aw...@effectivemachines.com>.
I forgot to mention something here, which makes it a bit more of a nuanced decision. The default repos from Ubuntu are set up such that:
OpenJDK 7 = 14.04 (Trusty)
OpenJDK 8 = 16.04 (Xenial)
All of the “get 7 on 16.04” and “get 8 on 14.04” I’ve seen have not been… appealing. (“Figure out which deb you need, then…” or “add the trusty repos temporarily” or … yeah. Not good.)
So if we want to stick with 7, then that means sticking with Trusty.
> On May 31, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I'd love a 0.5.0 release, FWIW.
>
> Would pulling down openjdk 7 artifacts go more reliably? That would
> presumably be a bit less disruptive than also jumping to jdk8.
>
> (for clarity, I don't think this is too aggressive, since the default
> is just an exemplar and folks could always roll their own.)
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Allen Wittenauer
> <aw...@effectivemachines.com> wrote:
>>
>> It looks like our default Docker image that we ship with Yetus is failing to build because it can’t download stuff from Oracle. Given that we probably should do at least something to fix it :), I thought it might be time to actually just upgrade the image completely. I’ve filed YETUS-512 which does the following:
>>
>> * Switches the base OS to Ubuntu Xenial 16.04
>> * Removes all of the Oracle JDK bits
>> * Switches the JDK to OpenJDK 8 (Headless)
>> * Removes a bunch of hacks that are no longer necessary
>>
>> As a result, this one builds significantly faster and is a tad bit smaller. If we think that’s too aggressive, then the alternative is to just remove the Oracle JDK7 bits from the current image. Either way, we’re looking at an incompatible/disruptive change.
>>
>> Sidenote: I’m currently trying to go through all of the 0.5.0 open issues. My goal is to work towards a release relatively soon, but no promises. Haven’t decided yet whether I’m going to tackle some of the bigger issues yet.
>>
>> Thanks.
Re: Default Docker image fails to build
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>.
I'd love a 0.5.0 release, FWIW.
Would pulling down openjdk 7 artifacts go more reliably? That would
presumably be a bit less disruptive than also jumping to jdk8.
(for clarity, I don't think this is too aggressive, since the default
is just an exemplar and folks could always roll their own.)
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Allen Wittenauer
<aw...@effectivemachines.com> wrote:
>
> It looks like our default Docker image that we ship with Yetus is failing to build because it can’t download stuff from Oracle. Given that we probably should do at least something to fix it :), I thought it might be time to actually just upgrade the image completely. I’ve filed YETUS-512 which does the following:
>
> * Switches the base OS to Ubuntu Xenial 16.04
> * Removes all of the Oracle JDK bits
> * Switches the JDK to OpenJDK 8 (Headless)
> * Removes a bunch of hacks that are no longer necessary
>
> As a result, this one builds significantly faster and is a tad bit smaller. If we think that’s too aggressive, then the alternative is to just remove the Oracle JDK7 bits from the current image. Either way, we’re looking at an incompatible/disruptive change.
>
> Sidenote: I’m currently trying to go through all of the 0.5.0 open issues. My goal is to work towards a release relatively soon, but no promises. Haven’t decided yet whether I’m going to tackle some of the bigger issues yet.
>
> Thanks.