@psjbeisler I understand their position. The work and infrastructure required to build the packages we do (all 7 active Debian+Ubuntu versions across 4 architectures, for 2 branches of Prosody (stable and dev)) - it's a lot, and @zash does most of it.
In theory this is what distros are meant to take care of, but in practice they often lag behind (creating a support burden for us). It's also really nice to have our commits packaged automatically into nightly builds the next day.
Overall, worthwhile 🙂
Last week I spent a couple of hours adding the upcoming Ubuntu LTS, so we're at 8 versions total, 3½ architectures (Ubuntu no longer supports i386 (except for the version that does 😭 )).
😄@psjbeisler
Technically there are no Docker images for Prosody at all right now 🙂
When we switched to the new build system (to get ARM support) Docker builds stopped working for all architectures as they were based on the old system. We'll fix it, but we're juggling many other tasks as well, so I can't give an ETA.
As a Docker maximalist you can of course build the image yourself using the Dockerfile and Debian package 😉
@zash
@rob
It looks like those images are for amd64 only, which is kinda what sparked this whole thread in the first place 😀
@zash @psjbeisler
@zash
Anybody using i386 on a non Debian?
I would suppose it doesn't hurt many people if its not supported anymore at all for the rest..
@mattj @psjbeisler
There appears to be more i386 users than ARM users, by an order of magnitude. (Unique IPs hitting our package repo.)
@zash @mattj
distros "lagging behind" is exactly the problem I was trying to solve. Just including an extra automated Docker build would reduce the fragmentation and support issues w/ packages IMO
(Theres no ARM images for Prosody either actually 😟 )
https://github.com/prosody/prosody-docker/issues/54