What's coming in 4.2



  • Oh that's fantastic then, thank you @girish 🙂 Much appreciated. I just saw the milestone flag change and got concerned, thinking I may need to devise my own solution if it would be quite far into the future for that to come out. Glad to hear it won't be too long and could still make it to 4.2.



  • Any ETA for when 4.2 will be released? Or is it too early to tell yet?



  • @d19dotca It's passed our e2e test now, so 4.2.0 will be out next week. It's a long weekend here, so wednesday.



  • @girish Perfect! 🙂 No worries, was a long weekend for me too in Canada.



  • The initial 4.2 was pushed out yesterday. So new Cloudrons will get 4.2 already. But this will take some time to hit existing cloudrons. We also have some features/cleanups to do for 4.2 to be properly released - https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/box/issues/647 . The unofficial change log is here - https://git.cloudron.io/cloudron/box/blob/master/CHANGES#L1652



  • @girish how do we force it? I assumed when you said it’s take a while to roll out to existing Cloudron’s I figured that’d only impact the automatic ones, but that it’d still be usable if manually requested in the Settings page using the Check for Update button, however it won’t find it when I do that. Is that intentional?



  • @d19dotca yes that is intentional, what we do is we have a white/black list of domains to which we push out updates one after another. This allows more fine grained testing from our side. You can send us an email at support@cloudron.io and we can whitelist yours if you want to test it sooner.



  • @nebulon Okay, I kind of understand that methodology but I would still like to request then that for the future, when a user manually checks for an update it's because they want to update so that should be sort of auto-whitelisted (not to mention it would save you some unnecessary support emails). I can appreciate and totally understand scattering it for automatic download types, but it should be understandable from your side too that when a user is manually tapping the Check For Update button it's because they already know there's a new update out and are ready to deploy it. 😉 So it'd be great if that auto-whitelisted the domain.



  • Hey @girish. Congrats on the release! I know it took a bunch of work.

    Did this feature get pulled from the 4.2 release? I wasn't able to see it in the release notes or on the demo site. Really looking forward to this feature.

    @girish said in What's coming in 4.2:

    Customizable app data directory - this will allow you to mount an external disk (like a DO block storage) and make an app use that storage block



  • @tamayers @d19dotca We have made the release available but it's only in use for new installations. This allows us get some early testing before we push it to all the existing Cloudrons. We are still working on the new app configuration UI + the mailbox forwarding feature. The data directory change is also there in the 4.2 release.



  • Quick update: the mailbox forwarding landed today ! You can now creating forwarding addresses to external domains. Cloudron will do SRS and reverse SRS as required.



  • @nebulon & @girish - my Cloudron still shows 4.1.7 when I check for updates. I would definitely say this should be a feature request then that is a user manually clicks/taps the Check For Updates button, the latest build is presented. It would only generally be used when someone is aware of an update and expecting to install it. I understand the blacklist/whitelist thing but I would say it should be ignored when the button is pressed. The rollout using a blacklist/whitelist should only be done for those who don't manually use the button so it notifies them when it's ready.



  • @d19dotca we don't push out 4.2.0 yet, even when checking for updates manually, has good reasons. We have found a few regressions which will affect existing Cloudrons, for example the stats view will miss data since that release would not reconfigure collectd as required. Newly created Cloudrons are not affected here.



  • @nebulon So to confirm then... 4.2 isn't really released at all then yet. It's pretty much in a "beta" state, used for new installs but nobody with an existing install will have received it yet unless we formally request our domain be whitelisted. Is that correct? There seems to be confusion here with the way things are being worded. 17 days ago it was stated "The initial 4.2 was pushed out yesterday" but now you're saying "we don't push out 4.2.0 yet" -- this is creating a bit of confusion.



  • Yes correct, the confusion comes from the fact that we wanted to release it normally but found regressions which are blocking it for now. Sorry about the communication here.



  • It's out!

    Add external LDAP server integration

    This is very good. Now if only the reverse was possible too we'd have ourselves a real symphony. 🙂



  • @yusf If you don't mind a bit of a "hack-n-slash" you could open up ports 389 and 636 in iptables to access the cloudron ldap server remotely 🐷



  • @murgero That sure is filthy but if also IP restricted and/or tunneled it may be okay? 🐽



  • @yusf You can restrict the port in IPTABLES as well, I don't remember if cloudron uses just IPTables or UFW but here is a rule for both that would work for routing to internal networks only:

    UFW:
    ufw allow from 192.168.1.0/24 to any port 389
    (This allows from the 192.168.1.0 network to TCP/UDP port 389. You can change the word "any" to "tcp" to restrict it to TCP only as well.)

    IPTABLES:
    iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -s 192.168.1.0/24 --dport 389 -j ACCEPT

    Please research what cloudron uses as it's firewall (I am almost positive it is iptables).

    Also note - This is an unsupported modification too.

    Also also note - You can probably make an app that can proxy this connection instead, using a different port, you can proxy to the LDAP server instead. (Say port 1389 as an example). This would probably work better since LDAP clients normally allow you to configure a port to connect to anyway.



  • @murgero Thanks! Though very unsupported also very interesting. Thought about the proxy app approach but you know my level id of expertise: not enough. 😆


Log in to reply