Update ubuntu version from 18.04 to 22.04 #216
Conversation
|
|
|
This by itself doesn't close #215 there are multiple steps (as described) and a somewhat elaborate release process. As the base image is meant to be relatively small, could you show the differences in size when changing dependencies? i.e. ubuntu-22 with same deps vs ubuntu-22 with the new deps. It would also be helpful if you could elaborate on why each dependency is needed and which one it replaces, for future reference. |
|
Old image size: ❯ docker inspect -f "{{ .Size }}" base | numfmt --to=si && docker history base
467M
IMAGE CREATED CREATED BY SIZE COMMENT
8f38a0d933be About a minute ago ENV UNITY_PATH=/opt/unity 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> About a minute ago RUN /bin/sh -c echo "576562626572264761624c6… 33B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> About a minute ago RUN /bin/sh -c /bin/echo -e 'pcm.!default {\… 52B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> About a minute ago RUN /bin/sh -c apt-get -q update && apt-get… 4.54MB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 2 minutes ago RUN /bin/sh -c apt-get -q update && apt-get… 93.2MB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 2 minutes ago RUN /bin/sh -c apt-get -q update && apt-get… 305MB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 5 hours ago RUN /bin/sh -c echo 'debconf debconf/fronten… 911kB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 5 hours ago ENV LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 5 hours ago ENV LANG=C.UTF-8 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 5 weeks ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) CMD ["/bin/bash"] 0B
<missing> 5 weeks ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ADD file:3c74e7e08cbf9a876… 63.2MB
<missing> 5 weeks ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) LABEL org.opencontainers.… 0B
<missing> 5 weeks ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) LABEL org.opencontainers.… 0B
<missing> 5 weeks ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ARG LAUNCHPAD_BUILD_ARCH 0B
<missing> 5 weeks ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ARG RELEASE 0BNew image size: ❯ docker inspect -f "{{ .Size }}" base | numfmt --to=si && docker history base
702M
IMAGE CREATED CREATED BY SIZE COMMENT
92532541d024 About a minute ago ENV UNITY_PATH=/opt/unity 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> About a minute ago RUN /bin/sh -c echo "576562626572264761624c6… 33B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> About a minute ago RUN /bin/sh -c /bin/echo -e 'pcm.!default {\… 52B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> About a minute ago RUN /bin/sh -c apt-get -q update && apt-get… 192MB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> About a minute ago RUN /bin/sh -c apt-get -q update && apt-get… 82MB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> About a minute ago RUN /bin/sh -c apt-get -q update && apt-get… 350MB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 5 hours ago RUN /bin/sh -c echo 'debconf debconf/fronten… 993kB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 5 hours ago ENV LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 5 hours ago ENV LANG=C.UTF-8 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 10 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) CMD ["/bin/bash"] 0B
<missing> 10 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ADD file:140fb5108b4a2861b… 77.8MB
<missing> 10 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) LABEL org.opencontainers.… 0B
<missing> 10 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) LABEL org.opencontainers.… 0B
<missing> 10 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ARG LAUNCHPAD_BUILD_ARCH 0B
<missing> 10 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ARG RELEASE 0B |
images/ubuntu/base/Dockerfile
Outdated
| @@ -27,8 +27,8 @@ RUN apt-get -q update \ | |||
| libxss1 \ | |||
| cpio \ | |||
| lsb-release \ | |||
| python \ | |||
| python-setuptools \ | |||
| python-is-python3 \ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
New way to install python
images/ubuntu/base/Dockerfile
Outdated
| python \ | ||
| python-setuptools \ | ||
| python-is-python3 \ | ||
| python3-pip \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
setuptools is included with pip
| && apt-get -q remove -y --auto-remove software-properties-common \ | ||
| && apt-get install -y \ | ||
| build-essential \ | ||
| libstdc++6 \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#163
New way to install libstdc++6
Added comments to the changes. Let me know if this is sufficient. |
|
Thank you @eugeneteoh! Old image size: 467 MB Everyone ok with the image sizes becoming quite a bit bigger, or does anyone see room for any optimisations? |
webbertakken
requested review from
lazerwalker,
davidmfinol,
GabLeRoux,
frostebite,
jcs090218,
EricRibeiro,
AndrewKahr,
KyleTryon and
cloudymax
At the cost of some readability you can prune it down to 667 by combining a few layers, and clearing the python cache + deleting some icons docker inspect -f "{{ .Size }}" test2 | numfmt --to=si && docker history test2
667M
IMAGE CREATED CREATED BY SIZE COMMENT
5637a3906eb2 2 minutes ago ENV UNITY_PATH=/opt/unity 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 2 minutes ago RUN /bin/sh -c echo 'debconf debconf/fronten… 589MB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 2 minutes ago ENV LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 2 minutes ago ENV LANG=C.UTF-8 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 11 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) CMD ["/bin/bash"] 0B
<missing> 11 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ADD file:140fb5108b4a2861b… 77.8MB
<missing> 11 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) LABEL org.opencontainers.… 0B
<missing> 11 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) LABEL org.opencontainers.… 0B
<missing> 11 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ARG LAUNCHPAD_BUILD_ARCH 0B
<missing> 11 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ARG RELEASE 0BARG ubuntuImage="ubuntu:22.04"
FROM $ubuntuImage
# Fixes a Gradle crash while building for Android on Unity 2019 when there are accented characters in environment variables
ENV LANG C.UTF-8
ENV LC_ALL C.UTF-8
# Set frontend to Noninteractive in Debian configuration.
# https://github.com/phusion/baseimage-docker/issues/58#issuecomment-47995343
RUN echo 'debconf debconf/frontend select Noninteractive' | debconf-set-selections\
# Global dependencies
&& apt-get -q update \
&& apt-get -q install -y --no-install-recommends apt-utils \
&& apt-get -q install -y --no-install-recommends --allow-downgrades \
ca-certificates \
libasound2 \
libc6-dev \
libcap2 \
libgconf-2-4 \
libglu1 \
libgtk-3-0 \
libncurses5 \
libnotify4 \
libnss3 \
libxtst6 \
libxss1 \
cpio \
lsb-release \
python3-pip \
xvfb \
xz-utils \
atop \
curl \
git \
git-lfs \
jq \
openssh-client \
wget \
zip \
unzip \
build-essential \
libstdc++6 \
&& git lfs install --system --skip-repo \
&& apt-get autoremove \
&& apt-get clean \
&& rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/* \
&& rm -rf /usr/share/icons/* \
&& rm -rf /usr/lib/python3.10/__pycache__/* \
# Disable default sound card, which removes ALSA warnings
&& /usr/bin/echo -e 'pcm.!default {\n\
type plug\n\
slave.pcm "null"\n\
}' > /etc/asound.conf \
# Support forward compatibility for unity activation
&& /usr/bin/echo "576562626572264761624c65526f7578" > /etc/machine-id && mkdir -p /var/lib/dbus/ && ln -sf /etc/machine-id /var/lib/dbus/machine-id
# Used by Unity editor in "modules.json" and must not end with a slash.
ENV UNITY_PATH="/opt/unity" |
In my opinion readability is quite important if we want people to keep contributing and in case some deps become obsolete. Clearing python cache and icons sounds like it's worth it though! |
|
I think the more interesting thing before we start comparing image sizes is seeing what dependencies are needed/not needed anymore as currently, it looks like most of the test builds failed. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but according to dockerhub, Ubuntu 18.04 was 24.5MB while 22.04 is 28.17MB so the real deciding factor for the size seems to be all the dependencies. |
Will do this.
Agreed. It is likely because 22.04 includes much newer versions of the dependencies, which makes the sizes bigger. But I can look into which dependencies are not needed anymore. Will also try to fix the CI. |
I'm not sure, but at least on desktop ubuntu 22.04, there was (maybe still is?) an issue where Unity Hub fails to launch due to Ubuntu 22.04 using an updated version of libssl that Unity Hub does not yet support, thus requiring an OLD version of ssl be installed: #---installing older version of SSL as workaround for Unity Hub failing to launch---
wget http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/o/openssl/libssl1.1_1.1.1f-1ubuntu2_amd64.deb
sudo dpkg -i libssl1.1_1.1.1f-1ubuntu2_amd64.deb
rm libssl1.1_1.1.1f-1ubuntu2_amd64.debI moved all of my custom images back to 18.04 to make them compatible with the existing base images so i don't have a good way to test this right now |
Reduces docker image size from 467Mb to 485Mb
Ok so I cleared the python cache and icons and removed ❯ docker inspect -f "{{ .Size }}" base | numfmt --to=si && docker history base
485M
IMAGE CREATED CREATED BY SIZE COMMENT
2f8ceb64b6f2 20 seconds ago ENV UNITY_PATH=/opt/unity 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 20 seconds ago RUN /bin/sh -c echo "576562626572264761624c6… 33B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 21 seconds ago RUN /bin/sh -c /bin/echo -e 'pcm.!default {\… 52B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 21 seconds ago RUN /bin/sh -c apt-get -q update && apt-get… 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 17 minutes ago RUN /bin/sh -c apt-get -q update && apt-get… 82MB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 17 minutes ago RUN /bin/sh -c apt-get -q update && apt-get… 324MB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 2 days ago RUN /bin/sh -c echo 'debconf debconf/fronten… 993kB buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 2 days ago ENV LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 2 days ago ENV LANG=C.UTF-8 0B buildkit.dockerfile.v0
<missing> 12 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) CMD ["/bin/bash"] 0B
<missing> 12 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ADD file:140fb5108b4a2861b… 77.8MB
<missing> 12 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) LABEL org.opencontainers.… 0B
<missing> 12 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) LABEL org.opencontainers.… 0B
<missing> 12 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ARG LAUNCHPAD_BUILD_ARCH 0B
<missing> 12 days ago /bin/sh -c #(nop) ARG RELEASE 0B Turns out I won't touch the other dependencies for now as I'm not familiar with what they're for. |
|
Quick question, what's the best way to replicate the CI locally? I'm trying to fix the failing builds. |
|
Local runs are usually a pain. If you really want to do it, you'll need to copy the dist folder from Unity builder then copy the docker run command from a GitHub action run and replace all the paeans as needed. Usually I'd use an env file for that. I'd recommend just letting GitHub actions run the builds as that'll require no setup and runs on a matrix of all versions. It should be running in your repo on every commit if I'm not mistaken. If it's not, you might consider tweaking the workflow to run. |
|
Hi all, I fixed most of the builds. Only ones that have failed are |
|
Looks like a step failed during hub installation based on the most recent run. |
|
All jobs have passed after re-running! New base image size: ❯ docker inspect -f "{{ .Size }}" base | numfmt --to=si
474M |
| && wget https://old-releases.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/g/gzip/gzip_1.6-5ubuntu2_amd64.deb \ | ||
| && dpkg -i gzip_1.6-5ubuntu2_amd64.deb \ | ||
| && rm gzip_1.6-5ubuntu2_amd64.deb \ | ||
| && echo 'export GZIP=-f' >> /usr/bin/unity-editor.d/webgl-2020.1-2.sh |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gzip environment variables are deprecated in the newer versions. The only way I can think of to fix the following issue is to downgrade gzip to an older version. Let me know if anyone has any other ideas.
#75
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good to me. Really amazing work getting this working! It's truly no small feat to get so many versions of Unity to play nice.
Before merging though, my question is what supporting work needs to be done? Most importantly, do we need to mark this as v2 or is it ok to go out as a new v1 image? If we do need to mark as v2, what work needs to be done in Unity builder to ensure it pulls the right images? @webbertakken
|
Agreed. This'll need to be a major bump. Then people can use ˋcustomImageˋ until we rollout the next major version of builder (which includes a few other breaking changes, including the CLI). |
|
Should we hold off on merging until builder is ready then? I suspect we will get a lot of questions/complaints if users have to start using custom image for new Unity versions. |
|
Sure, let's do that. For context: Whatever is merged to main also publishes the new versions of Unity Editor. So after we merge this we do also need to update An alternative is to have the build pipeline checkout a tag. But that comes with other challenges as well, as we'd have to make a tag for every change to be included in the newest versions, which means many more TBs of images - at which point we're going to have to start removing older images from Dockerhub. |
|
Hi guys, any updates for this? Anything I can help to get this merged? |
I'm not sure... @webber @AndrewKahr is there a open issue on builder that needs help getting over the line? I'm happy to lend a hand if needed |
|
We've worked ourselves into a little bit of a pickle. Basically we have a few breaking changes, and we said the CLI would be part of the next release too. The CLI isn't yet finished. We did make the decision to move away from Deno and back into Node. This PR itself is also a breaking change as we'd like to do a major bump for it, which won't automatically work in builder as it's using the latest The most forward way would be to finish the Unity-builder part of the CLI, and use it in the next release of unity-builder. |
|
I think a lot of people (at least for my use case) use the docker images outside of the Unity builder. IMO it makes sense to first have a major release for the docker images, then slowly adopt the major release to other tools like the Unity builder & cli. |
|
We could do that, but it would also mean that we can no longer make changes to the older version of the images (because we only have a single release branch: Reference: Unity builder has 3,5k projects using it. That does not include private projects (that we can't see at all) and other VCS services like GitLab. |
|
Can we set up a v2 release branch? |
|
It's possible. However, that would require adopting the versioning backend build scheduling. It would be much lighter to just finish the builder part of the CLI. Not to mention the amount of extra work for maintainers and increased risk of Dockerhub becoming unhappy from us uploading more version. If I remember correctly, each version in this repo accounts for ~4TB in images. |
|
In the meantime, if just one person makes forks the repo and publishes a single Unity Editor version (or all the newest ones) then that would effectively resolve anyone who is blocked here. |
|
Still discussing our options among maintainers. We might go with a double version bump and simply skip a version in the docs (because of potentially rapid major bumps and needless duplication of all docs) |
|
We've agreed to move forward with a unity-builder major bump that will include the change to the docker image major bump. That means
Then later for the CLI
That way it should be manageable enough. |
|
Thanks, this is super helpful! Keep up the good work! |
|
Here's the PR that will be needed before bumping major. game-ci/unity-builder#556. Before we merge that, we need the images to be published for all editor versions. You can follow the progress in our Discord channel #new-versions and on the documentation website under docker image versions. |
* Update base image to ubuntu 22.04 and fix dependencies * Replace python3 with python-is-python3 * Clear python cache and icons * Remove build-essentials Reduces docker image size from 467Mb to 485Mb * Add libssl fix for Ubuntu 22.04 * Trigger build * Add apt-get install flags * Increase build timeout * Install libssl1.1 and libssl1.0.0 from focal and bionic deb package repositories * Install libssl directly from source * Remove libssl1.0.0 from apt-get install * Fix brotli compression by installing python-setuptools * Update unityhub installation as apt-key is deprecated * Add unstable unityhub distribution * Increase build timeout * Add python2 symlink * Instal python2 for failed builds * Downgrade gzip version * Install python2 from python-setuptools * Minor bug fix # Conflicts: # .github/workflows/test.yml
Changes
Checklist