Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ship an embedded Jvm or installer #1666

Closed
ulfjack opened this issue Aug 19, 2016 · 11 comments
Closed

Ship an embedded Jvm or installer #1666

ulfjack opened this issue Aug 19, 2016 · 11 comments
Assignees
Labels
P1 I'll work on this now. (Assignee required) type: feature request
Milestone

Comments

@ulfjack
Copy link
Contributor

ulfjack commented Aug 19, 2016

We've gotten feedback that the dependency on Java makes it unnecessarily harder to install Bazel, and we should consider if bundling a Jvm or triggering a Jvm install from our installer would be workable options. What are our options here?

@damienmg
Copy link
Contributor

Adding Helen also, I think we also need to evaluate the benefit of doing so.

I am pretty sure we can do it with putting an engineer one month on it. The underlying maintenance is less clear. Probably around 1 day per Java update (so a day per month I would say) is a big overestimation.

I'd rather we work on that if that's higher priority that other thing. We agree it is nice to do, just not clear how nice.

@damienmg damienmg added type: feature request P3 We're not considering working on this, but happy to review a PR. (No assignee) labels Aug 22, 2016
@damienmg
Copy link
Contributor

(note: those costs are rough estimation of the engineering time, we probably needs to speak to legal about what we can do exactly, though this might be covered by the recent fix on GPL with classpath exception code).

@damienmg
Copy link
Contributor

/cc @philwo fyi

@damienmg damienmg changed the title Evaluate costs of shipping an embedded Jvm or installer Ship an embedded Jvm or installer Sep 13, 2016
@damienmg damienmg added P1 I'll work on this now. (Assignee required) and removed P3 We're not considering working on this, but happy to review a PR. (No assignee) labels Sep 13, 2016
@damienmg damienmg assigned philwo and unassigned damienmg and helenalt Sep 13, 2016
@damienmg damienmg modified the milestones: 0.6, 1.0 Sep 13, 2016
@damienmg
Copy link
Contributor

Reassigning priority so we can get rid of the JDK 7 build. Seems like the perfect solution for it. Philip has agreed to investigate further.

@philwo
Copy link
Member

philwo commented Feb 22, 2017

The feature is complete, integrated with our build process and in code review & pending final verification on Windows now.

@damienmg
Copy link
Contributor

It would need to integrate with our release pipeline too, but I guess this is just another target to build

@philwo
Copy link
Member

philwo commented Feb 22, 2017

Yes, the current approach is that this is just another target that we can build (//src:bazel_with_jdk instead of //src:bazel). :)

@philwo
Copy link
Member

philwo commented Mar 22, 2017

All required code changes have been made as of 9504827.

The last step is to actually integrate this into our release pipeline so that we build release artifacts of the new target. I think @damienmg wanted to have a look at this when he has some time.

@damienmg
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think I will have time for it soon enough, but just adding the target in //scripts/package to build the deb and .sh with jdk and then reference them in scripts/ci/build.sh for them to be pushed should be enough.

@abergmeier-dsfishlabs
Copy link
Contributor

Just as an input - we have a JDK for every platform in our repo just because the dependency on Java. Would also greatly appreciate, if that would be solved automagically.

@hlopko hlopko mentioned this issue Apr 26, 2017
@damienmg
Copy link
Contributor

damienmg commented May 5, 2017

As per @philwo report this is now working, we still need to figure out #2943 but this one is good to close. Thanks @philwo for making that possible!

@damienmg damienmg closed this as completed May 5, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
P1 I'll work on this now. (Assignee required) type: feature request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants