it seems the PPA for Ubuntu has not been updated for a while. Would be nice if someone could do that.
And while you’re at it maybe you could add a release file for Ubuntu 18.04 bionic. I am currently running the final beta with the seafile 6.1.5 client and its working without problems.
Come on Seafile Team (@daniel.pan) please update the repositories/ppas!
I’m stuck with client version 6.1.2 (from 2017/10/28!!!) on Ubuntu 16.04 (using your official recommended installation method via ppa).
I am suffering from the connection error caused by calling/showing localhost (on 127.0.0.1) which has already been fixed in version 6.1.4 (“Don’t show the connection status of 127.0.0.1”) last year. Now we are on version 6.1.7 (from 2018/03/29)!!! All your users should be on this version, too!
Sorry for the many "!"s, but your update behavior is not very reliable and trustworthy at all!
@wthess Thanks, for this possible solution. I appreciate this, in a way productive, advice. Though I already know this option and I have, all in all, no problem with compiling software myself, but here, my concerns are more of political nature.
Let me explain it to you real quick:
If they released the source code of a new client/server/whatever version and I had a critical bug with the old version, I would compile the version myself to bridge the few hours/days until the official compiled version for my platform is available. Another case would be, if it is a small/one man open source project, where no binaries are provided in general, then I had no problem compiling the stuff.
None of these situations is the case here!
Seafile Ltd. is a company with paying customers and they officially provide binaries (in this case for Ubuntu via official ppa). I agree that sometimes things can be delayed because of many reasons. I’m OK with it.
But it should never happen, like in this case, that an official way of distributing software is almost half a year behind the recent version (with quite some new versions in between). And you hear nothing from the developers/packagers about it!
And IMHO “You can compile it yourself” is in this case/in general not helping at all (in some special cases though), because the problem is not getting the software to your platform/or fixing some critical bug in the next minutes, it’s about being reliable in distributing your software in areas, where you said/“promised” to provide it as a company/developer. It should not be the case that you (always) have to ask to please update this and update that, about things which are officially supported/provided.
I hope you can emphasize with this kind of argumentation and maybe understand a little bit why I am
While I understand your frustration and don’t disagree with you, Seafile isn’t all for profit. The Community Edition and also the Pro Edition up to three users is free. Though I am not a programmer, I do volunteer my problem solving skills to help support Seafile since it’s one of the best open source programs I’ve used in my 30 years, and it’s my way of contributing to the effort to keep it free. Seafile could easily be a program that they could charge for, and personally, I would pay for it. But, I would rather see it stay free.
I can’t speak for the programmers and those that maintain the repositories and other backend things, but if they are like me, they do work full time jobs and participate where they can.
I would be inclined to say that the programmers focus most of their efforts on the Pro version, if not their cloud service, as that is where they make their money.
I would like to see a Linux client downloadable from the web site, but I don’t know that it’s practical or possible. Unfortunately, Linux is all over the place with so many distros out there, so that’s a lot of repositories to update, and building a downloadable version for every platform to put on the web site is not practical either.
It seems that with many other programs designed for Linux distros, the problem is the much the same. They just don’t get updated often. I find myself very often building and/or downloading new versions of various programs from web sites that are not in repositories. Most recently, certbot and letsencrypt, who revamped last year due to a security issue. Their new versions are not yet in most repositories.
It is, unfortunately, one of the evils of Linux, and a major reason why I don’t use Linux for anything other than file servers or web servers. As a desktop alternative to Windows and Mac, Linux still has a long way to go, due to that issue and many others, to boot.
No, but in the backports of Stretch and oder Debian and Ubuntu distros. And I would never go back to Windows for anything. In the AUR the seafile client is up to date and you can easy compile/install it with yaourt. I always use Debian or Alpine for Server and Arch and Debian for my Laptops. Ok, sometimes you have to use Ubuntu because some programs even won’t work good on Debian, but you never have to go back for Windows. So on my Laptop with Arch I already have the latest version.
@daniel.pan any plans to update the packages soon? Because unfortunately for me the builds fail and I am not really a pro, so I am not able to even get the last 5 versions and am stuck with the client of 5 versions ago =/
I agree a little bit, if you mean Seafile as a whole project. I don’t agree, if we speak about Seafile Ltd. I’m pretty sure this is a company in form of a private company limited by shares (-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_company_limited_by_shares). If Seafile is actually a company of this form, it was meant to be created to make money and to pay their staff. Nothing else. Seafile Ltd. is neither a foundation nor a registered society. Nothing wrong about it. But always remember that Seafile Ltd. is the one which carries/leads/develops/… the whole project Seafile quite alone, so Seafile is indeed Seafile Ltd. and vice versa. So all in all Seafile is in existence to make money. Which is fine. But only one more reason to update a software for a platform which they are officially support and provide software for.
Let me make that relation a little bit clearer and come to my point later.
First we have to talk about open source and what it really means to classify projects like Seafile.
Let’s start with the typical misunderstanding, I have the feeling you are suffering from, too.
“It is free/open source, then it is not for profit, then you can’t expect/claim something from developers/providers.”
“Open Source” is in first place something technical/legal, not political.
“Open Source” code is not the same as Open Developement. (-> see “Android Open Source Project (AOSP)”)
“Open Source” software does not implicitely mean “Open Source Community”. (-> compare Seafile to Nextcloud Project/Nextcloud GmbH/Nextcloud Community)
“Open Source” is not per se “people/world loving”/“sharing everything unselfish without any intention”.
“Open Source” is very complexe because of licensing/contributor license agreement and making money out of it (dual/multilicensing, binaries, support, …)
“Open Source” software does not implicate, that the project/company behind it is trustworthy, reliable or pedictable or open about their business.
So, this in mind, Seafile as a whole can be seen in many different aspects just in terms of only open source.
And here, is my evaluation. Seafile is all in all a great product. I really like the developers in a personal way. They are friendly, capable, gifted and willing to create a great product. They are the typical technical guys (ambitious comparison: like Linus Torvalds.) In first place their target is not to make an open source product but to create a good product. Torvalds first didn’t care much about an open source license for his kernel, but for technical details. But he was hinted at the possible advantages of putting the kernel under GPL. For him it totally worked out. A massive active and developing community grew around it, because it was allowed and wished. Linux got traction and they got sponsors/investments/employments in companies/contributions. So in the end this open source community project (which is really built around this piece of open source software) got its business model for paying developers and carrying itself in a political and economical way. In my opinion, Seafile on the other hand is not really built around an open source idea as in terms of an open source community project. There is no real community/contributing infrastructure for an active developing and decision making community, no real important jobs are given to the community (further their is actually no real active community, because none was raised by Seafile Ltd.; forum here is just little discussion and help). An active (developing) community with effective worksharing was not really (never?) pushed by Seafile Ltd. Seafile’s developer are very open to most ideas, but they (want to) make/decide it for their own, mostly behind closed doors (the github repositories are there, after all, just as the mirror of developement). Which is fine and they have of course the right to do it. But on the other side, this means that Seafile Ltd. is the Seafile server, the client, the technical decisions, the future direction of the project, the political identity of the project and so on. Based on this and bearing in mind that Seafile couldn’t get groundbreaking traction in its area like other “real” open source community projects, Seafile hasn’t recourse to an active developing community and no big classical open source sponsors. And at this point they have/had to look/overthink for their own business model. And in my opinion they were heavily looking for one (or changes for the existing one) the last year. I think they realized, that this open source model is not paying out for them. And they slowly trying to go some steps in another direction, maybe just to try. I think this is why they are not sure yet to open source their Drive client. Maybe they got/need classical investment/capital to try to grow their team, etc. They restructure things a bit and quit hosting Seafile themselves. Everything leads, in my opinion, to a not-so-community-open-source-centric-anymore business model. Which can really work out for them and maybe is a good idea for them with Seafile Server Pro as their only product (Community Edition is accessory/attachement. Compare: GitLab). But I hope you realize that everything ends up at Seafile Ltd. There is no real community around it. If they stop Seafile developement tomorrow, I can promise you, that for a long time (until some brave ones step up), but maybe forever there won’t be any Seafile developement anymore, because some open source code does not make an open source project. It is very difficult to overtake foreign (open source) code (see: ex-Seafile GmbH, now Syncwerk GmbH. -> We are still waiting!). In comparison, if Linus Torwalds says "Fuck it, from now on I’m lying on the beach and drinking my Mojito, the Linux kernel will easily survive. Same for Nextcloud, if Nextcloud GmbH will shut down its doors tomorrow, one month after it, the again community driven successor will be announced.
So, now this in mind, only some part of Seafile (Ltd.) is/cares about open source and the project itself and the company behind is definitely not mainly built around open source in a community way. So if you visit seafile.com, you DO NOT visit the website of an open source project or open source community project, where there are a lot of voluntary people donate their rare free time. You visit the homepage of the company Seafile Ltd, which promotes their product and earn money. And there, Seafile Ltd. is telling me, that they officially provide binaries for my OS (here Ubuntu via ppa). Think about it the other way round. Maybe some customers of the pro version or users of the community version made up their choice to use Seafile privately/in their company/in their non profit organization, because they told you it is officially supported for their client OS and so fits their ecosystem. And now, they are waiting about a half a year that somebody provide them a newer version for their OS. You can’t just tell them to compile it yourself! Maybe they are not able to do it.
First: Please, forget about this free/open source community world loving thing with too little developer when thinking about Seafile (and maybe about some other (open source) companies, which come in your mind, too). There may work nice people in them, maybe too little. But these are companies/businesses in first place, like every other business, too, and this is nothing bad. But if they say they provide something officially and this may be even a part of the service you are paying for (which is indirect the case, because it can be a reason to buy), then provide it! In some countries, these or similar things can even have legal consequences). If you can’t keep up with workload, change your amount of offers/services/binaries, delete this service, you can’t provide anymore, from your website and tell your customers about it or if it is temporary, communicate it to users and customers. But independently of business, it is damn bad practice, not reliable and not trustworthy to do not.
I can portray you many examples where I take you and a bigger company, and at the end you will say everything, from "the company neglect its “duty” over “the company doesn’t provide the arranged performance” to “I will sue them”. It does not matter how big the company is or if it is closed source. I really don’t get it why people always be “understanding/submissive” when the issue has something to do with open source. (please remember the list above!).
Second: Please, keep in mind, even the smallest project (open source or not) or biggest open source community driven project should be reliable and responsible-minded. “My software is free” is no excuse for being not. Although as a users it is polite to come to an accommodation and being patient and provide help.
Here for non profit things or communities, too: If you can’t keep up with workload, change your amount of offers/services/binaries, delete this service, you can’t provide anymore, from your website and tell your customers about it or if it is temporary, communicate it to users and customers. It is damn bad practice, not reliable and not trustworthy to do not.
Disclaimer: In life you can’t raise a claim to hardly anything. So ultimately you barely can claim a repository to be updated (be it a company or an open source community). But in the aspect of business and service, it is morally and with achievement-relation in mind reasonable, nearly postulated to claim the promised.
Conclusion: If, in this case, the company Seafile Ltd. says they officially provide binaries for Ubuntu via ppa, so provide it and update it!
Telling people they should compile it themselves (because it is open source), when software is not updated for half a year for whatever reason, is no general solution and an unnecessary defense of Seafile Ltd. and only a promotion of a wrong comprehension of distributing (open source) software.
This is completely out of place. In this debate Linux is an operating system like every other, too. If I say, I provide (compiled and packaged) software for whatever platform, then I provide it!
Some sentence to you Linux problem:
I’m d’accord, that you have a little bit more packages to provide in comparison to one windows package. But if your software allows the compilation targeting Linux, packaging is not as complicated as you might think. Use stable LTS versions of frameworks (Qt, …) and programming languages and you won’t even have dependency issues on the four or five big Linux distributions, on which Seafile is indeed focused and two of them are officially supported. So they obviously thought about that and decided to provide the software for the two. Then they should provide/update it!
Jop, this is an issue for regular users who don’t inform themselves about their distros repositories. Distros do not communicate this issue very well, though. Most non-rolling distribution don’t have one big repository, even if it seems to be the case. There are different repositories and classification of software. Only the most important software get (security) updates over the distros repository. The rest is packed only once while the distro version is developed and often is already outdated, when the distro is ready, and never going to be updated in this distribution version. So never rely on most of the packages in distros’ repositories to be updated (applies especially for non-rolling distributions). This is why it is essential for normal software, that developers provides it by themselves for the platforms they want their software to be on. And if they decide so, they should provide and maintain it!
So, sun is setting. I wish everybody a good night.
I’m here because I love open source and paying for some os software.
I’m here because I love Seafile, no matter if open source or not.
I’m here because I have learned to live with closed source software, paying for it (and even love many of it).
Ok, this text is very long and I even wrote unimportant stuff in this thread myself. Yes, SeaFile is a company, but the download of Linux isn’t very important. The big customers of seafile configure the clients with their own logos and so I think they will compile the clients for theirselves. And some smaller companies may even don’t need the latest version beacuse they don’t use the latest server. So it’s very unimportant for them.
Seafile Ltd. does not really seem to know how to make their product known on a large scale. Their business model is kind of weird (but ok). How they “handle” paying customers is not good at all.
100% of potential customers that I introduced to Seafile Pro did not go for it because of it’s problematic and untrustworthy development. There is no clear line in how they anounce new versions and version changes and many many other things that do not make them trustworthy.
I said enough about this the last years, in the old forum, in the new one, in others. I even worked part time for Seafile GmbH for a while. I am done with that (for now). The whole mess between Seafile Ltd. and Seafile GmbH was not nice and it shows that the devs who started this product have other goals in mind. For contractual reasons I cannot talk about many things and will never do. It’s just sad, very sad!
The CE manual is the last good deed that I’m doing for now. It’s just frustating to invest my time into such project if it consumes most time to discuss about the same s*** over and over again or to kinda solve problems caused by a never version that were not properly tested/documented. It’s supposed to help users up and running and that’s it. Nothing more.
I totally agree with @Nytrm . Even though this was way to much to read
Again, I don’t disagree with anyone regarding the issues. I, too, would like to see more frequent updates. But, I also see and personally know the other side of the coin in other business models other than programming… If it’s free, it’s just not going to get the same attention as paid products/services/versions, etc, and that applies to just about everything, regardless of the corporate structure. I currently use a lot of free programs from major corporations that are several versions behind the “paid” version, and that’s on a Windows/Mac platform where distributing updates is far simpler since there are only two platforms to contend with… Windows and Mac. To be honest, I’m not a fan of “repositories”… at all. But, it is what it is… Because Linux distros tend to deviate so damned much from one another, and they all have their own distro repositories rather than a developed standard for programs, it’s extremely time demanding to test and distribute for every distro out there. And, because there are many distros that have so many different followers, even distributing to 5 or 6 of them can be a pain in the arse.
As for Seafile, as large a product as it is, and the best of its kind in my mind, it takes a lot of people to maintain it, and that means either volunteers or paid staff. I don’t think that Seafile makes enough dough to hire enough people to maintain it as well as say a company like Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc could… There just isn’t enough demand for private cloud servers, and companies like Seafile have to compete with Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox, etc… the big boys who are floating in cash. Seafile is far superior to those other free offerings, with many more features and flexibility. Pretty sharp for a free program.
Oh, and one last thought… God forbid that Seafile ever sells out to Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc… Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a company that made a fantastic program sell the company to a big boy that either completely changes the nature of it or ditches it altogether. Let us all hope that never happens.
You didn’t listen closely to what I said! This is not the real issue here. It may be one reason for the issue, but IT IS NOT THE ISSUE itself! It is not about how much effort you put in something vs in another thing, but how you handle it! If you do not have the time to delete some lines from your website and release a little blog post or a little memo for your customers/users, then only God can help you with your business.
Agree! You have to focus your man power on essential and most important thing. And I’m ok with canceling things (e.g. a not updated ppa), you originally wanted to do/provide but can’t anymore because of missing man power or whatever reason! Things in business/life change and you have to change, too, to “survive”.
I really do not blame projects/companies, when they do not support or package their software for Linux. It is additional work and often don’t pay out. I’m used to it and understand it. This is not my problem with the situation here. But: When promoting things or saying you provide something, then do it! When you realize you can’t accomplish it anymore, be open about it, make a blog post for your customer/user and remove the service from your official website or at least write in big red letters above, that it can’t be maintained anymore or only when there is time. That is not much work! It is in my opinion no option and not good practice to still promote a service, but letting it rot in the meantime and let users/customers wait (no matter if it is used heavily or little) with no information about it.
For me a compromise could be: Remove the official promotion of the ppa and the Debian repo, because it isn’t in productive reliable existence anymore. If there are community repos, you can still name them as they are. Make a sticky post here in the forum and provide the repo here as unofficial/(partly) unmaintained, so you can have this repos still “alive” for some who needed it in the way they are now.
Maybe something like that will happen and it will be good. But it should definitely have happened at the point (2017/11/03) when 6.1.3 came out and you realize you can’t maintain the ppa/Debain repo any more.
And these kind of things have happened so often in the years of Seafile and there is no signal that anything will change. I could really make a list and this ppa-issue is the smallest problem. Seafile is no hobby project, but sometimes you receive the impression that it is exactly this. It is realy kind of a circlejerk for years now here in the forum with their development the same problems and policy and …
I completely agree with @DerDanilo and can feel his frustration. He did a lot for Seafile and for the community, but he has wrestled to no avail in years! If one is completely honest, Seafile did not change and did not evolve much in the last years, whereas other projects (which are even younger) did not only work on their product itself, but on making a plan, keeping the plan, growing trust, trying to be reliable, being patient and thoughtful in development, … and this is what brings you growth and customers, the (features of a) product is only one part.
(-> Compare: another file and collaboration centric service will now be used not only by big companies but governmental departments and between them. And I promise you that the decision to choose them was made only 50% about the product and its features itself and the other 50% about how the product is handled by its creator.)
At least in my latitudinal lines this is essential to be adopted as an IT solution and you won’t success without being reliable with your project and things which matters in general for software (and this starts with how you provide a ppa or at least how you handle things you want/can or don’t want/can’t to provide anymore).
I really have the impression that Seafile Ltd. wants to be successful and their software to be reliable and used not only on your home server or 5 people team, but on a large scale, but the software is only one part of the solution. (Maybe I am in error about their plan. They decide where they want to be.)
And because I really like the software and in a way the team and want them to succeed, the evolution of Seafile hurts me all the more. I think that is the case with @DerDanilo, too.
Mostly this scenario isn’t indeed going to end well for the bought software. But I’m torn here. If the buying company really has interest/concern in/for the software and wants a similar way of distribution and vision for the software, this step could help Seafile to built a solid product complete in every respect.
So here, I would say “rant end” and back to the topic “Ubuntu Client ppa not up to date” and “Please update ppa”, but why and what would change?
let me bring this thread back to the original topic, which is still unsolved:
a while ago, i contributed the code basis for building proper debian packages for seafile. i also suggested creating a PPA to make supporting all relevant ubuntu versions much easier.
the fact that seafile versions differ now (and are totally outdated for the most part) between ubuntu releases lets me suspect that the PPA is not set up correctly. you only need a single build recipe to fetch the code of new releases automatically from a git repo and build it for all flavours of ubuntu you checked in the config. there is no manual intervention necessary to have all up-to-date ubuntu packages all the time – that’s the main benefit of using the PPA build service. we’re doing this for RKWard for many years now.
please just ask if you have questions on how to configure the PPA repos.