@girish said in Baserow 1.9 and it's Dockerfile and packaging changes:
@nigel_baserow sorry for the late reply!
As @robi mentioned, all our apps are based on the same base image. This is mostly to maintain consistency and saves us a lot of developer time in terms of maintaining these images. The base image also needs to have many packages that are expected by the Cloudron tooling - the web terminal, upload, extract features all depend on the base image having various packages pre-installed.
In general, we are comfortable with the cloudron packaging and the upstream docker image diverging. From what we have seen, the goals of these images are quite different. Upstream images want to support a wide variety of configurations and have different optimizations in mind. The Cloudron image on the other hand is pre-configured (database, email, storage, auth etc) and has various security restrictions (read only file system, non-root user etc).
We are happy to make the changes needed to the cloudron packaging with your help (this is just a matter of adapting what you have written to the cloudron image, I think). So, I think 1) is the way to go. Another thing is that removing mjml service is not a problem at all. In fact, that is the advantage of cloudron packaging, the docker images can be thrown away and replaced with another as long as the docker image can handle the "data" from the previous version.
Hello, thank you for building Cloudron, and all of the work that has gone into it.
Baserow is one of the applications that I use a lot on Cloudron and I intend to use it further in combination with n8n and other applications.
What's the status of updating Baserow to 1.9 in Cloudron?
Thank you for your time and support.