Any replacement for bintray?

[Jean-Baptiste Cattley]

Hi, 

We have a large and shifting cohort of users that rely on binary downloads of TigerVNC. 

However, bintray - where the binaries are hosted - is going away next month. 

Are there any plans for alternate hosting for binary distributions? Our users are not in a position to build from source... 

[Brian Hinz]

We’re actively evaluating possible replacements but haven’t settled on one yet

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TigerVNC User Discussion/Support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tigervnc-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tigervnc-users/40260a24-218d-4b5e-b99a-3c745063d89bn%40googlegroups.com.

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[Pierre Ossman]

And to be honest, we're not seeing any really good options so if anyone
has any good suggestions then please let us know.

On 18/04/2021 03:53, Brian Hinz wrote:
> We’re actively evaluating possible replacements but haven’t settled on one
> yet
>

Regards
--
Pierre Ossman Software Development
Cendio AB https://cendio.com
Teknikringen 8 https://twitter.com/ThinLinc
583 30 Linköping https://facebook.com/ThinLinc
Phone: +46-13-214600

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[DRC]

SourceForge is still there, and all of my projects (including
libjpeg-turbo, one of TigerVNC's dependencies) still use it for hosting
official release binaries. I resisted the call to move to BinTray
because I prefer to deploy files via SCP or rsync, which SourceForge
allows. Its file release platform also allows for hosting arbitrary
directory structures, so I use it to host YUM repositories for my
projects. The company that was responsible for the "DevShare"
controversy hasn't owned SourceForge since 2016 (but I still make sure
to digitally sign all binaries that I host there, so users can verify
that they haven't been tampered with.) The technology behind
SourceForge is somewhat outdated, and its revenue model is ad-based,
which has the potential for sketchiness, but it still seems to have
significant momentum within the open source community.

Another option would be to set up your own S3 bucket. My projects use
that for hosting pre-release builds. Generally S3 will be free for a
year, then you'll be charged based on the actual amount of storage and
bandwidth you use. My bill usually amounts to US$0.15-$0.20 per month,
but I expect that it would be more if I were using it for official releases.

[Brian Hinz]

> Another option would be to set up your own S3 bucket.  My projects use
> that for hosting pre-release builds.  Generally S3 will be free for a
> year, then you'll be charged based on the actual amount of storage and
> bandwidth you use.  My bill usually amounts to US$0.15-$0.20 per month,
> but I expect that it would be more if I were using it for official releases.

We use S3 for the pre-release builds as well, but my costs are over $5 per month already.  If we hosted yum/apt repos that way I think the GETS would cause costs to skyrocket

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TigerVNC User Discussion/Support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tigervnc-user...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tigervnc-users/8d2a3e29-a580-574f-e6d2-b7a0dc01ab69%40virtualgl.org.

[DRC]

On 4/20/21 10:22 AM, Brian Hinz wrote:
> > Another option would be to set up your own S3 bucket.  My projects use
> > that for hosting pre-release builds.  Generally S3 will be free for a
> > year, then you'll be charged based on the actual amount of storage and
> > bandwidth you use.  My bill usually amounts to US$0.15-$0.20 per
month,
> > but I expect that it would be more if I were using it for official
> releases.
>
> We use S3 for the pre-release builds as well, but my costs are over $5
> per month already.  If we hosted yum/apt repos that way I think the
> GETS would cause costs to skyrocket

Yikes.  I guess TigerVNC gets more pre-release activity than any of my
projects do.

You could also just deploy the binaries to GitHub, use SourceForge's
automatic GitHub syncing mechanism to mirror the GitHub-hosted files
onto SourceForge, then host your YUM/APT repositories on SourceForge
using the mirrored files.  That would provide a bit more redundancy,

since if SF decides to do something stupid again, the most you would
lose is your YUM/APT repositories.

Here's wishing that GitHub would improve its file sharing
functionality.  It seems like a missed opportunity, IMHO.

[Pierre Ossman]

On 20/04/2021 17:14, DRC wrote:
> projects.  The company that was responsible for the "DevShare"
> controversy hasn't owned SourceForge since 2016 (but I still make sure

That whole incident still gives me an adverse reaction whenever I hear
sourceforge. But if the culprits behind it are gone, and you've been
satisfied it since then, then it something we should probably consider.

Thanks for your input.

[Pierre Ossman]

On 21/04/2021 09:06, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On 20/04/2021 17:14, DRC wrote:
>> projects.  The company that was responsible for the "DevShare"
>> controversy hasn't owned SourceForge since 2016 (but I still make sure
>
> That whole incident still gives me an adverse reaction whenever I hear
> sourceforge. But if the culprits behind it are gone, and you've been
> satisfied it since then, then it something we should probably consider.
>

I tried reactivating our TigerVNC project on SourceForge, but something
is borked. It seems they've set up some very agressive redirect to
tigervnc.org so I can't even access the admin pages. :/

I've filed a support request with them but no response yet.