Temurin-build: Question: interest in docker file support for other platforms?

[mstoodle]

Currently there is only an x86 ubuntu Dockerfile in openjdk-build.

Would there be interest to expand the platform support beyond this one platform (i'm thinking hardware platforms more than OS, but I suppose there could be an argument for both)?

[gdams]

I'm keen to have s390x, ppc64le and aarch64. Perhaps a few others too? Perhaps we could get together and work on getting some of this work done?

[mstoodle]

I would be happy to help, maybe after one of #166 / #168 wraps up.

[karianna]

As many as possible would be welcome I'm guessing :-)

[gibfahn]

Using fat manifests so that docker pull adoptopenjdk/openjdk8 works on all architectures would be pretty neat.

https://developer.ibm.com/linuxonpower/2017/07/27/create-multi-architecture-docker-image/

[tellison]

@gibfahn yes, @dinogun has done this before for the JDK, so he's best placed to handle / advise on that.

[dinogun]

Ref multi-arch builds, it is only possible if the builds are official Docker maintained ones (Unless we are looking to maintain a public docker registry, say on adoptopenjdk.net).
Docker Official repos -> https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_repos/
Docker now owns the "arch/" namespaces (s390x, ppc64le, i386, arm64 etc) on hub.docker.com.

I think having an official image such as "OpenJDK-build" (Different from the currently available "OpenJDK" for just the binaries) maintained by docker will be a great advert for AdoptOpenJDK and help developers access multi-arch images as well.

[neomatrix369]

Great idea, could we draw up a matrix of the platform/os/container environments we intend to support, minus the ones covered by others already (i.e. Docker Hub, etc).

On the same topic, are we supporting all other bare-metal / virtual platforms yet, I had mentioned a couple in one of the meetings? Would love to pick them up if everyone agrees.

@gdams let me know when you start working on the ones you mentioned, I would like to take part, have done some of these previously.

[karianna]

openjdk-docker now exists as a project and will need to have the building of its images added to our Jenkins server.

[vielmetti]

Looking forward to seeing this, especially for the Arm builds. I would note that @estesp who has been championing the multiarch stuff is from IBM.

[JamesKingdon]

For arm it would be good to have both aarch64 and arm (32 bit), and while the traditional approach is the x86 hosted cross compiler tool-chains it would be nice to have native images to reach a wider audience (and the purists amongst us!). There are plenty of 8-core SBCs that run docker quite happily.

[stooart-mon]

I'm working on using Docker for the arm 32-bit builds. It seems to be the most tractable way of building for 32-bit on a 64-bit server with reasonable performnce.

[sxa]

We have x64, ppc64le, s390x and aarch64 support in https://ci.adoptopenjdk.net/view/Docker%20Images/job/openjdk_build_docker_multiarch/ - So of the ones discussed in this thread only 32-bit ARM is missing. Are there any blockers to putting arm32 builds up at the moment @dinogun ?

[dinogun]

Maybe @mstoodle can answer that question. We currently dont have arm32 builds, not sure what is the pending work. Adding support for arm32 docker images once a build is available should be pretty easy enough.

[JamesKingdon]

Arm32/OpenJ9 should be doable, but I've only being working on it for cross-compilation. Arm32/Hotspot should be able to use the same cross-compilation environment as OpenJ9, as I tested the dockerfile with both near the beginning of the work. The work needed is to replicate/integrate the build environment based on the Dockerfile in https://github.com/eclipse/openj9/blob/master/buildenv/docker/jdk9/armhf_CC/arm-linux-gnueabihf/Dockerfile with the Adopt build system.

[karianna]

Going to close this issue - we will accept Pull Requests but as a team will not create them ourselves.