gemmellr commented on code in PR #4731:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/4731#discussion_r1447282732
##########
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 .
+ # Multi-platform for Ubuntu on Linux AMD64 & ARM64/V8 with full JDK
+ $ docker buildx build --platform linux/amd64,linux/arm64/v8 --push -t
{your-repository}/apache-artemis:{your-version} -f
./docker/Dockerfile-ubuntu-21 .
Review Comment:
My understanding was they are essentially interchangeable, especially in
this case with cross compiling against the bare 'linux/arm64' saying much the
same thing as 'linux/arm/v8' because v8 was the original arm64. There could be
more specific variants being produced in cases it might need to be explicitly
distingish for a particular image, especially e.g if there are to be different
supported variants of the image at the same time for different instruction
classes and using a specific one is required in certain cases.
For comparison, we also only tend to use 'linux/amd64' for images but there
are also multiple variants of AMD64/x86-64 as well now to distinguish different
instruction additions over time through feature levels, e.g the [docs I
referenced for docker
buildx](https://docs.docker.com/build/building/multi-platform/#cross-compilation)
demonstrates those too such as linux/amd64/v2 and linux/amd64/v3. In the past,
most stuff was built for just AMD64 'v1' but that increasingly isnt true
anymore.
As a related example to both of these, RHEL9 binaries are actually compiled
for AMD64v2 feature level however the UBI9 images dont use linux/amd64/v2 for
the os/arch name but [simply
linux/amd64](https://hub.docker.com/layers/redhat/ubi9/latest/images/sha256-3b696988fc62a88631898d24bde1f2bfb703fe6530f36ad9b98baff9ad4c73fc?context=explore).
The UBI9 image ARM bits are also published for simply linux/arm64 as another
comparison.
(Aside, its still being explored [whether RHEL10 will be compiled for
AMD64/v3](https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2024/01/02/exploring-x86-64-v3-red-hat-enterprise-linux-10)...I
would guess the images will just continue to use simply linux/amd64 for the
os/arch name even if they are for/require v3).
So e.g perhaps in future we could want/need to add linux/arm64/v9 in
addition to linux/arm64 (or linux/arm64/v8) if we ever wanted to publish e.g v8
and v9 aimed images with different content at the same time to support some
specific native instruction usages (dont see that happening for a while,
personally), but otherwise we would likely just have one version and folks
would all still just get the 'linux/arm64' image.
Actually, doing some more searching, this issue around the docker buildx
stuff suggests that in some cases at least ['linux/arm64/v8' could just result
in 'linux/arm64' output without specified variant since its not actually to
expectation](https://github.com/moby/buildkit/issues/4039) and comments
indicating instead it expects just linux/arm64 or its said it could have been
linux/arm/v8 if specifying v8 (i.e no 64 in that syntax). Though another
comment there then also says 'linux/arm64' and 'linux/arm64/v8' are equal and
neither is incorrect (in other contexts), which probably explains why the
Temurin stuff is indeed using it just fine hehe.
The original example here has long used linux/arm64 for the V8 bits, as do
all the examples in docs for the docker build stuff by default, as do the UBI
images. I think linux/arm64 is the nicer/neater/simpler option until we should
actually need to do something more complex. I think I'd go with it as it was
unless there is compelling obviously-correct reason we should change it now,
which I'm not really seeing.
--
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]
