I've merged the docker build into the default branch.
It may not be perfect, but it does work well enough!
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 17:14, sebb wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 15:59, Alex Remily wrote:
> >
> > I went back and reviewed docker setup at your link:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 15:59, Alex Remily wrote:
>
> I went back and reviewed docker setup at your link:
>
> https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/tree/79374289bdd227b5b668039c9336cd10d9e3bf7c/src/docker
>
> Nice work.
Props to you for getting the initial build working.
I just tweaked it.
> I
I went back and reviewed docker setup at your link:
https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/tree/79374289bdd227b5b668039c9336cd10d9e3bf7c/src/docker
Nice work. I agree that it's more flexible and provides the same
capability. The instructions were straightforward and the end result was a
full
I think there's an issue with all the existing Docker files.
They install both 64-bit and 32-bit packages.
This is fine if the output ends up in different directories (or if the
output is the same).
However that is definitely not the case for opensslconf.h.
At present the 64-bit version is also
Then I was definitely looking at the wrong version of your file. I'll
circle back and run it again.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:52 PM sebb wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 22:32, Alex Remily wrote:
> >
> > previous
> > submission.>
> >
> > Don't know that it's an "improvement", but a different
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 22:32, Alex Remily wrote:
>
> submission.>
>
> Don't know that it's an "improvement", but a different approach. I think
> if we provide a dockerfile that builds every supported arch (minus the Mac)
> developers could easily modify it by removing parts they don't want as
>
Don't know that it's an "improvement", but a different approach. I think
if we provide a dockerfile that builds every supported arch (minus the Mac)
developers could easily modify it by removing parts they don't want as
opposed to adding dependencies and builds for the parts that they do.
Also,
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 20:00, Alex Remily wrote:
>
> I went ahead and submitted a PR related to this discussion. The dockerfile
> does a full build, minus the Mac, and should simplify the release process.
Not sure how it improves on the Docker build I derived from your
previous submission.
Did
I went ahead and submitted a PR related to this discussion. The dockerfile
does a full build, minus the Mac, and should simplify the release process.
Developers can easily modify as needed for their own purposes. I recommend
removing the 32-bit Mac build profile from the POM, but have not done so
On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 14:35, Alex Remily wrote:
>
> Sebb,
>
> I cloned your repo and ran the dockerfile. Feedback:
>
> The Maven download link is broken. It appears Apache updated to 3.8.6 on
> the 17th. I think the 3.6.3 build is less likely (although still not
> certain--as you pointed out)
Sebb,
I cloned your repo and ran the dockerfile. Feedback:
The Maven download link is broken. It appears Apache updated to 3.8.6 on
the 17th. I think the 3.6.3 build is less likely (although still not
certain--as you pointed out) to get overwritten.
RUN wget
https://dlcdn.apache.org/maven/mav
I took the very useful Dockerfile from Alex and updated it to split
the Maven build into a separate script.
There are now two stages:
- create the build environment with all the necessary tools
- run Maven to build the various objects
The container uses the source (and Maven repo) from the host,
12 matches
Mail list logo
