gemmellr commented on code in PR #4731:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4731#discussion_r1446252165


##########
artemis-docker/prepare-docker.sh:
##########
@@ -53,23 +53,23 @@ Well done! Now you can continue with building the Docker 
image:
   # Go to $ARTEMIS_DIST_DIR
   $ cd $ARTEMIS_DIST_DIR
 
-  # For CentOS with full JDK 11
-  $ docker build -f ./docker/Dockerfile-centos7-11 -t artemis-centos .
+  # For CentOS with full JDK 17
+  $ docker build -f ./docker/Dockerfile-centos7-17 -t artemis-centos .
 
-  # For Ubuntu with full JDK 11
-  $ docker build -f ./docker/Dockerfile-ubuntu-11 -t artemis-ubuntu .
+  # For Ubuntu with full JDK 21
+  $ docker build -f ./docker/Dockerfile-ubuntu-21 -t artemis-ubuntu .
 
-  # For Ubuntu with just JRE 11
-  $ docker build -f ./docker/Dockerfile-ubuntu-11-jre -t artemis-ubuntu-jre .
+  # For Ubuntu with just JRE 21
+  $ docker build -f ./docker/Dockerfile-ubuntu-21-jre -t artemis-ubuntu-jre .
 
-  # For Alpine with full JDK 17
-  $ docker build -f ./docker/Dockerfile-alpine-17 -t artemis-alpine .
+  # For Alpine with full JDK 21
+  $ docker build -f ./docker/Dockerfile-alpine-21 -t artemis-alpine .
 
-  # For Alpine with just JRE 11
-  $ docker build -f ./docker/Dockerfile-alpine-11-jre -t artemis-alpine-jre .
+  # For Alpine with just JRE 21
+  $ docker build -f ./docker/Dockerfile-alpine-21-jre -t artemis-alpine-jre .
 
   # For Ubuntu on Linux ARMv7/ARM64 with full JDK
-  $ docker buildx build --platform linux/arm64,linux/arm/v7 --push -t 
{your-repository}/apache-artemis:2.17.0-SNAPSHOT -f 
./docker/Dockerfile-ubuntu-11 .
+  $ docker buildx build --platform linux/arm64,linux/arm/v8 --push -t 
{your-repository}/apache-artemis:2.16.0 -f ./docker/Dockerfile-ubuntu-21 .

Review Comment:
   Didnt notice this one before...not sure it makes sense since ARM v8 
essentially is arm64, so its not clear thats command is something people should 
use (also be inconsistent with the comment above it still noting ARMv7). Could 
be worth just switching it to only linux/arm64 though at this point.
   
   Also, should the "2.16.0" not just be replaced with a version placeholder 
given its usually going to be incorrect (assuming they arent actually using 
2.16.0).



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to