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 <thomas.bou...@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.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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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. >
