What's coming in 9.1
-
@girish said in What's coming in 9.1:
The design requires Dockerfiles to work reliably since the images are not "backed up" .
I think for reliability it would probably be easier to backup the docker images instead of counting on well written Dockerfiles. But on the other hand even for these apps I would think the Cloudron base image will be used most commonly, so the chaos might be minimal.
Personally I would then rather use the community packages where I can have a pre built docker image that i can (more) easily deploy to Cloudron.
@fbartels I should clarify further. The two features are for different use cases.
The custom app deployment was primarily to help people writing and deploy their own custom apps. There are many who are forking packages and adding some minor patches (because we don't allow customizations with readonly fs). This new mechanism will help people build+deploy easily. This does not require CloudronVersions.json. Only implemented in CLI. I think the CLI workflow gives the right messaging that they have to keep it updated themselves.
The community package always has a docker image associated and requires CloudronVersions.json. It was for people who want to share their packages with others and provide updates.
There is no plan to give a source URL in the UI and "build" from source. While technically possible, don't want people to expect "builds", "deployments" etc like a code deploy/PaaS. It's something for the future, if a use case exists.
Hope that clarifies!
-
Request: Passkeys support for the Cloudron login
-
G girish referenced this topic
-
Any chance to have some VPN per App or S3-as-a-service in there as well?
-
-
Hello @nostrdev
We have tested the passkey support with the Bitwarden browser extension, YubiKey 5, Nitrokey and native support from some browsers and operating systems like Windows, Apple and Linux.
Please note, we implemented passkey support and not the full WebAuthn/FIDO2 specification available options.