Yes, issues with musl vs. glibc were the key reason that I had heard for OpenJDK to not be willing to support Java 11 on Alpine.
I don't see any mention of Alpine or Debian on the official images page at https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk . There is mention of Alpine and Debian on the unofficial images page at https://hub.docker.com/r/adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 . Is there somewhere that the difference between official and unofficial AdoptOpenJDK images is described? On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jim Crowley <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, > > For Alpine are you referring to the issue with glibc vs musl? It looks > like the AdoptOpenJDK team built Alpine images with glibc install on top of > the base image. You can look at the Dockefile here, > https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/openjdk-docker/tree/master/8/jdk/alpine. > > I am loving the AdoptOpenJDK team's support for multiple platforms too! I > think it is also nice having all the OpenJ9 builds as well as Hotspot. Give > users more choice is a good thing! I am really hoping for an arm port of > OpenJ9 down the line! > > Let me know if you have any more questions! > > On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 6:54:08 PM UTC-4, Mark Waite wrote: >> >> Thanks very much for starting the discussion. >> >> I'm interested in evaluating the switch from OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. >> I've been using JDK 8 and 11 hotspot builds from AdoptOpenJDK for many >> months with very good results. >> >> Several of the OpenJDK providers (Red Hat, Amazon, Azul) seem to be >> limiting their platform support much more than AdoptOpenJDK does. So long >> as we can get the platforms we need (Debian, CentOS, UBI), I'm interested >> in evaluating the change. >> >> I thought there were specific barriers that prevent Alpine Linux support, >> though I see that Azul provides an Alpine Linux build for 8, 11, and 13. >> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:09 PM Jim Crowley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I posted this proposal on GitHub, >>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/893, but also wanted to get >>> the feedback of the community here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> As we start to look into supporting multiple architectures, we might >>> want to pivot from using OpenJDK to AdoptOpenJDK. There are couple reasons >>> behind this. >>> >>> >>> >>> First, it makes our build scripts and Dockerfiles easier to maintain. >>> Currently, in publish-experimental.sh, we have logic that handles pulling >>> from the “right” OpenJDK for a specific architecture. This could be remove >>> as the AdoptOpenJDK Docker image, https://hub.docker.com/_/adoptopenjdk, >>> has a manifest file that will handle pulling the correct image for the >>> given architecture. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Second, the OpenJDK image’s we are pulling from to build out our >>> multi-arch images, s390x/ openjdk:8-jdk, arm32v7/openjdk:8-jdk, etc. will >>> not be updated anymore. This has to do with OpenJDK not publishing >>> “official” binaries for these architectures. More information on this issue >>> can be found here, >>> https://github.com/docker-library/openjdk/issues/364#issuecomment-540821603 >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Third, this would pair nicely with the proposal to add OpenJ9, >>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker/issues/884. The AdoptOpenJDK image >>> has tags that support OpenJ9, so it should not be to much more work to >>> support this additional tag for our Jenkins images. >>> >>> >>> >>> The only roadblock right now is the base image/tag support the official >>> AdoptOpenJDK image on DockerHub. Currently, they only support an Ubuntu and >>> Widows Server Core base image. I talked with the Adopt team, Alpine and >>> Debian, Ubi base images are coming down the pipeline. This is aimed at the >>> next PR to the official DockerHub image repository. CentOS/ClefOS are also >>> coming but I do not have an ETA. >>> >>> Now we could wait for the official image or we could use the unofficial >>> images the Adopt team does produce. Using the unofficial images does >>> provide us with Alpine, Debian, etc support quicker. But they will be >>> unofficial images, which I know some users do not like to use. >>> >>> >>> Either way, I wanted to get community feedback! So please let me know >>> what you think of this proposal. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/6eb646a8-6835-4720-beca-9afe95fa0ca0%40googlegroups.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/6eb646a8-6835-4720-beca-9afe95fa0ca0%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks! >> Mark Waite >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/c159ed57-6990-4a66-9756-38517e6800f3%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/c159ed57-6990-4a66-9756-38517e6800f3%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Thanks! Mark Waite -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAO49JtGCZ4Spq3H3gRis3EvWJNZqfFUqOwU%3Dkhexhr%2BYmNjX4g%40mail.gmail.com.
