It would be nice to have two snap packages: - CouchDB 2.0 UN-CLUSTERED - CouchDB 2.0 CLUSTERED VERSION
That will encourage a lot of "standalone" CouchDB users to upgrade to a 2.0 version without the clustering overload stuff, and thus make a big pool of 2.0 testers and bug-reporters! Teo On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Michael Hall <mhall...@gmail.com> wrote: > First off, congratulations on the upcoming 2.0 release! > > I would love to see this new version available as a Snap package for > users of Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, since the archive version will be frozen on > 1.6.0 for the next 5 years of it's lifecycle. > > Snaps are self-contained packages that include all of the dependencies > they need, which lets them run as you (the upstream) intended across new > releases of Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, and many other distros. They run in a > sandbox that protects them from changes made to the user's system, but > with a number of optional interfaces if you need deeper interaction or > to share data with other apps. > > Every snap includes its own file tree, and is run on top of the same > base image regardless of distro or form factor. This keeps the > application's own files isolated from other apps and the host system, in > a read-only filesystem, which makes updating them safe and simple while > keeping you in control of the whole stack that your application runs on. > The snappy runtime then provides writable areas for storing both > versioned and unversioned data, as well as system-wide or per-user data. > > We also provide a Snap Store, which combines the speed of > self-publishing with the discoverability of a central archive. It is > used by default across all Ubuntu 16.04 flavors and derivatives, and any > distro where snaps have been enabled. Thanks to Snap's confinement, > applications can be published immediately after uploading. This means > that your application and updates are available to tens of millions of > users as soon as you press the button. > > I started the work on producing a Snap package for Couchdb 2.0, but as I > couldn't find a binary release I had to try building it from source and > unfortunately I was not successful on that step. I am happy to share my > packaging configuration with anybody here who knows the build process > better than me, but it would be even simpler to create the snap package > at the end of whatever process you already have to build binary > releases. I am happy to help with either or both approaches, and you can > also learn more about the snap format and tools here: http://snapcraft.io/ > > -- > Michael Hall > mhall...@gmail.com >
