sqoop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Attila Szabó <mau...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Question: Third party docker support file version
Date Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:12:14 GMT

I've also found another strange thing:
It seems oracle/database: is no longer available on dockerhub,
thus the usage of these scripts are very difficult at the beginning, and
needs lots of workarounds (of course it's feasible to clone github, build
the oracle image, etc., but it's very far from the original goal) to make
it work (nonetheless it's very much not working out of the box).

Do we plan to do anything with this? (e.g. creating an official Sqoop id
for dockerhub, and push their the prebuilt image or so). If yes I'd more
than happy to provide my help, guidance on this front.



On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Attila Szabó <maugli@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> A few months ago Szabi created start and stop scripts for docker-compose,
> to run 3rd party DBs for the 3rd party tests, which is great ( it's
> intention is to make the integration testing of Sqoop much easier ).
> Though the version of docker-compose file is 3+, thus it's only usable
> with the quite recent docker-compose+docker versions.
> And here comes the problem:
> The latest version of CentOS (7.4) by default comes a much older
> Docker+Docker-compose version, which is incompatible with the compose file
> version. So out of the box, this solution won't work on the latest CentOS
> version for example (I've discovered it b/c one of my test servers runs
> CentOS7.4).
> I'm not telling it's impossible to install it from the net (first docker
> and then docker compose), but it's just not the standard/convenient/stable
> solution which would come from the RPM package.
> Here comes my question:
> What do you think: is it possible, and would it make sense to rewrite the
> docker compose file to version 2, and thus providing an EZ way to use this
> feature by the majority of the Linux users? Is there any vital feature in
> version 3 what is required for this task?
> Keeping it simple:
> Would it be possible to provide a much wider usable version of this docker
> based testing solution, or would we like to keep and handle it as an
> experimental testing feature?
> Thanks,
> Attila

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message