Only 10.0.4 from EPEL7 i Fedora – https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/nextcloud
I thought that the point was not to use repos any longer because the updater was the right way to do it.
I have long been a proponent of repo based methods for reliability, but I have finally given up on that for Nextcloud because they chose not to do anything official with repos after leaving ownCloud.
It’s also for the client, there repos are really useful. For the server it still can be nice but the main purpose was that NC does not have to manage the repos themselves.
@jospoortvliet: good idea to put all repos together and I agree on keeping this list updated.
Well, speaking of the client and repos, where does chocolatey fit into the picture? Someone has submitted it there and that is awesome as I use Chocolatey to manage applications on Windows machines.
Never heard of it before but hey, it would be great to have it in there.
Note that all the packages are provided by the distributions, not us - that is how it works on Linux in general… When they are included officially (like in openSUSE, Arch) that makes it super easy to install for users.
WRT packages vs tarball with our updater, I think the updater is generally a better solution because I know and trust the team maintaining that part (us…) but of course it is totally understandable that some people prefer packages or trust their distribution to keep things up to date.
Good that there is choice!
4 posts were split to a new topic: Packages for Nextcloud on RH/CentOS
It is an awesome tool for Windows admins. I would suggest that you reach out to whoever put it in there to make sure it is pointing to the proper source and all that.
If you feel like it - you’re entirely welcome to help out with this.You clearly know more about this subject than I do, I’d just sound clueless
@James_Hogarth might know more about this, he’s the one doing the packaging.
Hello, I just want to tell you guys, that Nextcloud is avariable on OpenBSD-current, on the ports tree and also packages, the very last version to this point.
To confirm NextCloud 11 will be packaged for EPEL7 as the bump in PHP minimum version isn’t until NC12.
At that point I’m not sure what I’ll do yet, as I cannot use SCL in an EPEL package.
My options are:
- To maintain 11 for as long as NC maintains support for 11
- To retire from EPEL and see if I can maintain it as part of the CentOS SCL SIG
- To advise people to use upstream packages, or to switch to RemiRepo, as I believe Remi will continue to maintain it on his PHP stack there using the Fedora SRPMs I’ll be generating
- To use the upcoming Fedora nextcloud container on an EL7 box using docker/runc.
However, that decision is indeed still a little way off.
In terms of Fedora at least Nextcloud will be maintained so long as it exists
I ended up packaging NC 10 rather than the 11 build to get through the review quicker as there were some dependency issues.
You can keep track of the NC 11 status with this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433919
A post was split to a new topic: Migrate RH 7 client to Nextcloud
Actually I’m the maintainer for this repository:
It’s very simple package for CentOS 7 which we are currently using on our project (NethServer).
I managed to make it work with php-fpm-56 from SCL.
Any developer can confirm it? The official doc says that PHP 5.6 is required for NC 11 (https://docs.nextcloud.com/server/11/admin_manual/installation/system_requirements.html#supported-platforms)
A post was merged into an existing topic: Migrate ownCloud on RH 7 to Nextcloud
RHEL (server & client in EPL7 repo)
You probably mean “EPEL” (instead of EPL)?
@morph027 you state explicitly on the page that your packages are not ‘official’. Now you can argue back and forth on that, but this is a community - you’re undeniably part of it, providing these packages for loads of people, and we have no ‘official’ stamps for packages, pro or con
You maintain recipes in a public git repo on gitlab, which would be a big requirement if there ever was one for being ‘official’. Another would be getting contributions, having a team - I’m sure you’d welcome PR’s, though.
What I’m saying is - I don’t want to tell you what to do but I kindly suggest the big disclaimer about this not being ‘official’ isn’t really needed…
Nice to know, going to remove this
But as said before, with the new updater, packages aren’t necessary anymore IMHO. It just works
Agreed. But we don’t have automatic updates yet - once we have that I really think it is better if people don’t use packages but use the zip file, from a security point of view…
But it will be impossible to have an automatic updater unless a lot of stuff changes. Right now, if you follow the secure directory guide, it kills the updater from working. You have to log in as root and chown things back to apache. Then you can run the update. Then you have to chown it all back.