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 <geoff.macart...@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.campb...@cloudsoft.io> > wrote: > >> +1 to only build docker image when profile is activated >> >> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, 16:34 Geoff Macartney <geoff.macart...@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.bou...@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.henev...@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.macart...@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 <rich...@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. >> > > >> > >> >
