Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

consider snap packaging for clickhouse #20277

Closed
filimonov opened this issue Feb 10, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

consider snap packaging for clickhouse #20277

filimonov opened this issue Feb 10, 2021 · 4 comments
Labels
comp-packaging deb, rpm, tar, service-file etc. feature st-wontfix Known issue, no plans to fix it currenlty

Comments

@filimonov
Copy link
Contributor

filimonov commented Feb 10, 2021 •
edited
Loading

snap become more popular, and it's really easy to install snap packaged software on ubuntu.

In contrast, to publish debs in official repos the software should fit (quite problematic) requirements about linking.

Vote:
👍 = i need it, 👎 please no, 😕 i don't care.
@filimonov filimonov added feature st-discussion The story requires discussion /research / expert help / design & decomposition before will be taken comp-packaging deb, rpm, tar, service-file etc. labels Feb 10, 2021
@alexey-milovidov
Copy link
Member

Note that Snap, AppImage, Flatpak are always worse than our no-dependencies single binary build.

We can consider building Snap only for inclusion in the official Ubuntu repository.

@filimonov
Copy link
Contributor Author

+1.

I've put discussion - because it's not clear if it really needed and will increase the number of things to support.

Advantages of the snap are one-line installation, existence in the listing of snap applications in ubuntu store, sandbox (nice to try w/o bloating the system).

Disadvantages: one more distribution to maintain, many 'sources of truth', extra isolation level (that may potentially lead to some issues which will need to be analyzed/debugged).

@filimonov
Copy link
Contributor Author

Let's keep it open and collect feedback.

@alexey-milovidov
Copy link
Member

alexey-milovidov commented Jun 13, 2021 •
edited
Loading

We have two negative votes and two positive.

@alexey-milovidov alexey-milovidov added st-wontfix Known issue, no plans to fix it currenlty and removed st-discussion The story requires discussion /research / expert help / design & decomposition before will be taken labels Jun 13, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
comp-packaging deb, rpm, tar, service-file etc. feature st-wontfix Known issue, no plans to fix it currenlty
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@filimonov @alexey-milovidov