[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Build depends on Docker

We added this in, 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.


On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 16:58 Richard Downer <richard@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 brooklyn-dist is obsolete now.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.