Iād say that providing up to date packages is a great idea and Iād like to invite distributions to do that.
So distributions with a rolling model or a short release cycle like Arch, openSUSE Tumbleweed, Fedora or Debian Unstable/Testing could easily include Nextcloud packages and - please, guys and girls, do. Anything we can do to help, ask us!
For a more LTS focused distribution there are two problems:
long term bug and security fixes are something very few volunteers want to work on (most barely fix bugs in the stable release but only in development versionsā¦).
Nextcloud canāt skip upgrades. And I donāt think it is OK running people through 5-10 upgrades at once at the end of the period.
It wonāt be easy to find people willing to do bug and security fixes for 10 years. I sure wonāt be willing to force volunteer developers to backport every fix for that long. A low barrier to contribution to Nextcloud is important to us.
We want to make it possible to skip releases, so that concern might go away in a future release, but weāre talking at least 2-3 releases from now, I think. An alternative would be to built a hacky way to skip upgrades which risks usersā data - something we would get very upset about (again). Usersā data is holy, not risking it is rule 1 of Nextcloud.
PHP itself has 2 years full support + 1 year security updates (https://secure.php.net/supported-versions.php). CentOS backports fixes but I donāt know if they do it for all sorts of web application.
Ubuntu LTS support (5 years) only applies for packages from main. There are likely some unsupported packages: ubuntu-support-status --show-unsupported.
NC releases receive security updates for 18 months, thatās a considerable period of time. If you can skip major upgrades this would mean you must do a upgrade every 18 months. But how to implement this into the distribution packages? Would it help to provide a NC LTS with a support cycle of letās say 2 years, and cut support a bit for other versions? To comply with the release cycle of Debian/Ubuntu it should be rather 3 years. Or they have to do a major NC upgrade at mid-term?
With regards to the 18 months, thatās waaaaaaaay not long enough for Debian, RHEL or SLES and, indeed, even Ubuntu LTS with its 5 yearsā¦ RHEL and SLES are supported for a decade or so.
The distroās could decide to do major upgrades during this period, that would solve the problem of course.
Not sure, but i remember RHELās support is not covering software like owncloud. So I donāt know of examples where 10 years would apply. Never the less: Thatās the question that distributions answer when packaging software. I donāt think that known security issues would just remain unfixed in Debian stable. The seperate Debian LTS team might just drop support for Nextcloud. As with a direct Nextcloud installation you would have to upgrade, in this case your distribution from LTS to old-stable or stable.
Still for me the question remains, will you threaten downstreams with trademarks again?
You could save space by using āfolksā while being even more inclusive
It would be great if you wouldnāt mix things up. Owncloud was distributed via the āuniverseā repository. Itās not officially supported, and also practically there is not LTS support at all. You canāt blame other distributions for Ubuntu having such a nontransparent security support policy (VLC player and Chromium are also in āuniverseā).
Well anyways, Iām totally confused now with all the different support periods. Does that mean we keep everything as is and let others worry about it?
Not in principle, but we havenāt done it before either. Only if people do stuff that would make Nextcloud look bad - for example, things that threaten user data, or adding spyware. But thatās always been a rule in our trademark guidelines.
RHELās support doesnāt cover Nextcloud or ownCloud, the idea is that those companies get paid by customers for support of their software on RHEL.
So your company deploys RHEL 7.2, which has 10 years RH support. You then buy Oracle version whatever, which also has 10 years for that RHEL release. And you get Software X, also 10 years supported with Oracle version whatever and RHEL 7.2. Now you have a platform you can use for 10 years, and you pay gold for that to Oracle, RH and the vendor of Software X because they need money to pay their engineers to work with stuff so old nobody sane wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole.
This isnāt solving anything. The problem has never been to find a repository/bugtracker/infrastructure to develop packages. The problem is NCās attitude towards downstreams users who just want to apt-get install nextcloud and know itāll work.
allow migration from one stable version to the other (even if the migration script is written by the distro maintainer).
There is currently still code that canāt deal with this. Also distro maintainers in the past did not write migration scripts but they are of course free to do so
do not threaten people if they donāt maintain your software the way you would like them to.
There never were threats but people were displeased with communication and like you pointed out some distro maintainers turned off the check while not writing migration scripts so they broke peopleās installs.
If I may, I believe the 2 issues of
1.Having a āstableā system
2.Making sure no obsolete NC installs are left around
can be addressed.
You have a lot of packages that require frequent updates: anti-virus systems, etc.
In Debian for example, there is a repository called āstable-updatesā, for packages matching the following (from Debian website):
-The update is urgent and not of a security nature. Security updates will continue to be pushed through the security archive. Examples include packages broken by the flow of time (c.f. spamassassin and the year 2010 problem) and fixes for bugs introduced by point releases.
-The package in question is a data package and the data must be updated in a timely manner (e.g. tzdata).
-Fixes to leaf packages that were broken by external changes (e.g. video downloading tools and tor).
-Packages that need to be current to be useful (e.g. clamav).
So if the package maintainer manage to convince NC belongs in stable-updates, then they can get their more frequent updates without compromising the whole system stability.
I assume similar mechanisms exist for other distributions?
If you mean, with point 2, that one should be able to skip a release on upgrading, this is work-in-progress but quite hard. 12 will most likely make big steps in that direction, not sure if itāll be ready yet, though.
With regards to the other points - weāve had stable releases since we started, that is what 9, 10 and 11 are. And when did we ever threaten people? If you refer to the packaging debates earlier with Debian - wellā¦ First, we might still be unhappy if a distribution isnāt careful with user data, or seems to be going in that direction. Bu weāre a different project, different management i particular. So we wonāt be making our own packages anymore nor will we tell people to use those. Entirely up to the distribution now. That should be blindingly obvious by now - we donāt and wonāt be packaging.
And if a distribution breaks packaging, well, we have no expertise doing better. We might suggest to use another distroā¦ Which is what Iād currently recommend - if you want packages, use a distro which provides and maintains them. Simple.
@jospoortvliet - Sorry this took a while but there was a bit of $life in the way for a couple of months and we wanted to be rigorous with the packaging from the start rather than go through the major refactoring again that we had with owncloud.
There are now nextcloud 10 packages that have been approved and in the testing repositories for Fedora and EPEL7
The package includes migration instructions from owncloud if there is an existing instance you want to convert and a more detailed write up is available here:
Weāre now hard at work with the newer dependencies needed for nextcloud 11 (symfony 3+ being the biggest one we are working on) and there will be an update to that in due course.
The packages should reach the stable Fedora repos in about a week and EPEL7 stable in about a fortnight.
It is in the EPEL7 repos so easy to install on CentOS/RHEL 7
Due to PHP version limitations I canāt build this there on EL6
Do note that with the min PHP version being bumped in nextcloud 12 to 5.6 there cannot be an EPEL7 package for that then.
Iām not 100% sure if Iāll continue to maintain nextcloud 11 in EPEL7 for as long as it gets updates or if itāll be retired at that point - but thatās still some way off and Iāll have an article with the options available to people nearer the time of that event.
This is indeed very very bad. Nextcloud 10 is EOL with the last public release in August, it shouldnāt even have landed in a new Fedora release! This just confirms the low quality (aka Red Hat playground) of this distribution to allow something like that.
It would be better to remove the package and use the official tarball to be on the safe side.