Docker-sonarqube: support arm64 architecture

[longquan7]

I want to build this image on arm64 architecture but I'm not sure this file can be support arm64.https://sonarsource.bintray.com/Distribution/sonarqube/sonarqube-6.5.zip

[tianon]

Since sonarqube is FROM openjdk:..., this Dockerfile _should_ just work as-is with any the architectures supported by openjdk (https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/blob/83445dba81738f34d37e13fa811b34841d1d6def/library/openjdk#L63, amd64, arm32v5, arm32v7, arm64v8, i386, ppc64le, s390x), with the caveat that Alpine support needs to wait on https://github.com/gliderlabs/docker-alpine/issues/304.

See https://github.com/docker-library/official-images#architectures-other-than-amd64 and https://github.com/docker-library/official-images#multiple-architectures for more information about multi-architecture official images. :+1:

[kmleow]

Hi @tianon,

According to https://hub.docker.com/_/sonarqube/, it says supported architecture is amd64 only.
Perhaps that page should be updated to reflect the true list?

Thank you

[tianon]

@kmleow correct, that's what this issue is discussing -- the image maintainers need to commit to at least accepting that the software will be available for other arches (which is what we expect for "support" from the official images side).

It'd probably be helpful to also have someone verify my assumption above and actually test building and running sonarqube on these other arches.

Once that's done, https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/blob/master/library/sonarqube will need to be updated to reference the actual supported architectures, which will then cause them to be built/published, and the "supported architectures" list to be updated.

[tianon]

I've just built 7.1 on arm64v8 successfully, and it appears to run just fine:

2018.06.05 20:37:07 INFO  app[][o.s.a.SchedulerImpl] SonarQube is up

(as expected -- after a ton of other normal startup output :smile:)

@Godin any objections to officially supporting other architectures as has been proposed here? Does the upstream SonarQube project support other architectures already?

[Godin]

@tianon first of all thank you for your help, testing, explanations and very good questions in this thread :heart:

AFAIK SonarQube is extensively tested only on amd64. Also I have serious doubts that Elasticsearch (one of very sensitive and core components in SonarQube) officially supports anything else - quoting https://www.elastic.co/support/matrix :

currently only support and test x86_64 architectures.

Similarly (exactly from the same source above) in fact even support of alpine variant is highly questionable from official point of view.

And to be fully honest and transparent with you even status of Docker image as one of official distribution channels of SonarQube by SonarSource is questionable ( CC @simonbrandhof ) - from questions/answers, community/paid support, updates/maintainance, testing, promotion, etc points of view. I personally don't wanna altruistically take additional work/risks on my shoulders by growing matrix. IMO we first need to clarify all this internally. Thank you for understanding.

[lag-linaro]

@Godin I'm going to add a "me too" for ARM64 support. There is a big push from some silicon vendors and ARM itself to ensure the architecture is as broadly supported as X86 is currently. It is paramount that Enterprise based projects such as this one 'just work'.

Seeing as this project seems to work (build, run) on ARM64 already, is there any chance we can add it to the list of supported architectures, so at least docker pull can work. Then add a caveat to the tune of, ARM64 support is provided for testing purposes only and is not officially supported/funded by this project currently.

[simonbrandhof]

I confirm that in the current state SonarQube is not supported on ARM64. As a consequence the Docker image should not be marked as compatible.

I suggest to discuss about the need to support ARM64 on the community forum of SonarSource. Thanks for your understanding.