Still digesting email from when I was on PTO... Sounds good; I'll try and have another look at the proposal this week. On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 1:16 PM jdenise(a)redhat.com <jdenise(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi Brian, > thank-you for your feedback. > I first thought that having 2 feature-packs would provide less confusion. > The cloud feature-pack exposes a lot of env variables that will get ignored > with bootable JAR. So my concern was more at the doc level. > After having rethought at it, having a single feature-pack, as you > mentioned, should be a better approach. Simpler to maintain, should avoid > fp explosion and create a simpler User experience. > > Having the existing cloud fp to work for bootable JAR would imply: > > - The bash scripts installed by default will not break bootable JAR. > They are ignored (we already ignore some files that get provisioned such as > standalone launch scripts, some tools script). We would be able to exclude > them at provisioning time for bootable JAR packaging but it would be not > mandatory. > - We are introducing a new JBoss Modules module specific for Bootable > JAR, that we could see installed in all cases even if not used in a non > bootable JAR case (a very small module). We would be able to exclude > it at provisioning time for nominal server installation but it would be not > mandatory. > > So in the end we should be able to use the cloud feature-pack for both > packaging without having to mandatorily adjust the provisioning > configuration. The provisioning configuration could be adjusted to exclude > some packages (bash scripts or bootable JAR specific JBoss Modules module) > for optimal provisioned content. > I am going to revisit the proposal to reflect this approach. > > *From: *Brian Stansberry <bstansbe(a)redhat.com&gt; > *Date: *Wednesday, 6 August 2025 at 00:23 > *To: *Jean Francois Denise <jdenise(a)redhat.com&gt; > *Cc: *WildFly Dev <wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > *Subject: *Re: [wildfly-dev] [proposal] WildFly Maven Plugin, package > bootable JAR for the cloud > > Sent from Outlook for Mac > Is there a way we can make this work with wildfly-cloud-feature-pack? > > It seems like this new FP and the existing one share a lot of overlap, > but then beyond the shared stuff for bootable jar a bit more stuff is > needed and for the s2i use case a bunch of incorrect-for-bootable jar stuff > is installed. > > That kind of feels like layers. > > To be fair, providing 1 feature pack and asking users to configure it for > the desired target might be more of a burden to them than providing 2 FPs. > But two FPs does seem confusing. It also increases our cost of delivery. > > This is a bit of a tangent, but for sure we are going to need to adapt > Galleon so a FP can base on one of a set of compatible alternatives, not be > fixed to one. Dual mode for EE 10 and 11 will mean different flavors of > wildfly-ee, and we can't have that result in needing 2 of every other FP we > produce. > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 10:16 AM Jean Francois Denise via wildfly-dev < > wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; wrote: > > Hi, > > I’ve created a proposal[1] to package a WildFly Bootable JAR for the > cloud when using the WildFly Maven Plugin (we are currently packaging a > bootable JAR for bare-metal only). > > I’m looking for a feature team to work on this proposal. > I would also need an outside perspective to fully form the team. > > Best regards, > JF > > [1] https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-proposals/pull/748 > > _______________________________________________ > wildfly-dev mailing list -- wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > To unsubscribe send an email to wildfly-dev-leave(a)lists.jboss.org > Privacy Statement: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/privacy-policy > List Archives: > https://lists.jboss.org/archives/list/wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org/message... > > > > -- > Brian Stansberry > Architect, JBoss EAP > WildFly Project Lead > He/Him/His > -- Brian Stansberry Architect, JBoss EAP WildFly Project Lead He/Him/His