No RPM packages? #482

@abosaad11 commented on GitHub (Apr 21, 2023):

The rpm packages are still there.

@abosaad11 commented on GitHub (Apr 21, 2023): The rpm packages are still there.

adam commented

@fuomag9 commented on GitHub (Apr 21, 2023):

The rpm packages are still there.

Where? There are no RPM packages in the latest release...

@fuomag9 commented on GitHub (Apr 21, 2023): > The rpm packages are still there. Where? There are no RPM packages in the latest release... <img width="756" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1580624/233549797-4d61ba65-14ee-4595-b2d6-275ee9508d7d.png">

adam commented

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2023):

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2023): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/

adam commented

@fuomag9 commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2023):

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/

Thank you! Is that official?

https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/issues/1341#issuecomment-1514391252 did not plan to move it to a repo for what I understood (I very much welcome the change!)

@fuomag9 commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2023): > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/ Thank you! Is that official? https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/issues/1341#issuecomment-1514391252 did not plan to move it to a repo for what I understood (I very much welcome the change!)

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:50 +01:00

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2023):

Not sure if they will end up calling it official or not but @kradalby held back the RPMs in https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/pull/1297 specifically because I was building these.

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2023): Not sure if they will end up calling it official or not but @kradalby held back the RPMs in https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/pull/1297 specifically because I was building these.

adam commented

@juanfont commented on GitHub (May 10, 2023):

@fuomag9 I reckon @jonathanspw's plan is to make them official into Fedora/CentOS/RHEL. Is that correct?

@juanfont commented on GitHub (May 10, 2023): @fuomag9 I reckon @jonathanspw's plan is to make them official into Fedora/CentOS/RHEL. Is that correct?

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:50 +01:00

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023):

@jonathanspw pinging @juanfont question, would you consider trying to upstream them to the official repos?

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023): @jonathanspw pinging @juanfont question, would you consider trying to upstream them to the official repos?

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:50 +01:00

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023):

@jonathanspw pinging @juanfont question, would you consider trying to upstream them to the official repos?

I could put them in the official repos but I think given how quickly headscale is pushing to newer and newer Go versions constantly it would result in Fedora releases getting outdated quite fast. COPR works around this by letting me build it with custom verions of Go as needed.

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023): > @jonathanspw pinging @juanfont question, would you consider trying to upstream them to the official repos? I could put them in the official repos but I think given how quickly headscale is pushing to newer and newer Go versions constantly it would result in Fedora releases getting outdated quite fast. COPR works around this by letting me build it with custom verions of Go as needed.

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:51 +01:00

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023):

Sounds reasonable, I think we should do two things:

it would be great if you could make a PR to link to this in the docs and on the webpage
create a template for the release text in go releaser which mentiones this so that we post it on every release

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Jun 19, 2023): Sounds reasonable, I think we should do two things: - it would be great if you could make a PR to link to this in the docs and on the webpage - create a template for the release text in go releaser which mentiones this so that we post it on every release

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:51 +01:00

@gbraad commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2023):

@jonathanspw the problem is that the package can not be used with a version check. The RPM version returns:

$ headscale version
dev

which is non-usable value.

@gbraad commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2023): @jonathanspw the problem is that the package can not be used with a version check. The RPM version returns: ``` $ headscale version dev ``` which is non-usable value.

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:51 +01:00

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2023):

This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no activity.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2023): This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no activity.

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:52 +01:00

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2023):

This is not stale.

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2023): This is not stale.

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:52 +01:00

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2024):

This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no activity.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2024): This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no activity.

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:52 +01:00

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2024):

Still not stale.

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2024): Still not stale.

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:53 +01:00

@FreedomBen commented on GitHub (May 6, 2024):

I got here after grepping the git log and finding b12a167fa2 .

Would it be accurate then to summarize the current state as this?:

RPMs are no longing being built and attached to the github release page
RPMs are still being built but are going to this COPR repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/

COPR link: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/
Github of the COPR build: https://github.com/jonathanspw/headscale-rpm

@FreedomBen commented on GitHub (May 6, 2024): I got here after grepping the git log and finding b12a167fa243bed6d6703a235b299ce1c6f679f8 . Would it be accurate then to summarize the current state as this?: 1. RPMs are no longing being built and attached to the github release page 2. RPMs are still being built but are going to this COPR repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/ COPR link: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/ Github of the COPR build: https://github.com/jonathanspw/headscale-rpm

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:53 +01:00

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (May 6, 2024):

I got here after grepping the git log and finding b12a167 .

Would it be accurate then to summarize the current state as this?:
1. RPMs are no longing being built and attached to the github release page

2. RPMs are still being built but are going to this COPR repo:  https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/
COPR link: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/ Github of the COPR build: https://github.com/jonathanspw/headscale-rpm

Correct.

For EPEL the builds will likely remain COPR-only (due to the Go version required for building). For Fedora I'll revisit the idea of putting them in base Fedora repos once 0.23 is stable.

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (May 6, 2024): > I got here after grepping the git log and finding [b12a167](https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/commit/b12a167fa243bed6d6703a235b299ce1c6f679f8) . > > Would it be accurate then to summarize the current state as this?: > > 1. RPMs are no longing being built and attached to the github release page > > 2. RPMs are still being built but are going to this COPR repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/ > > > COPR link: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/ Github of the COPR build: https://github.com/jonathanspw/headscale-rpm Correct. For EPEL the builds will likely remain COPR-only (due to the Go version required for building). For Fedora I'll revisit the idea of putting them in base Fedora repos once 0.23 is stable.

adam commented

2025-12-29 02:18:53 +01:00

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2024):

This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no activity.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2024): This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no activity.

adam commented

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2024):

Not stale.

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2024): Not stale.

adam commented

@IceFlom commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2024):

Will the repository mentioned above (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/) get an update to the recent version 0.23.0?

@IceFlom commented on GitHub (Nov 21, 2024): Will the repository mentioned above (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/headscale/) get an update to the recent version 0.23.0?

adam commented

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2024):

It is managed by @jonathanspw, @jonathanspw does it have an automatic release build job?

We could add back goreleaser rpms to the build, but as far as I remember, they were not fully correct from an RPM packaging perspective, so it becomes a discussion of "correct" vs available.

We do not have a repository and wont do one, but we can release rpms via github.
I do not mind either way, maybe consistent "not perfect" releases via the release page is ideal, I will leave the decision up to the community.

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2024): It is managed by @jonathanspw, @jonathanspw does it have an automatic release build job? We could add back goreleaser rpms to the build, but as far as I remember, they were not fully correct from an RPM packaging perspective, so it becomes a discussion of "correct" vs available. We do not have a repository and wont do one, but we can release rpms via github. I do not mind either way, maybe consistent "not perfect" releases via the release page is ideal, I will leave the decision up to the community.

adam commented

@IceFlom commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2024):

Even if there is a repository, why not also make the rpm packages available? I would prefer that, regardless of whether there is a working repository.

Currently I have no chance for an update on my Alma Linux system, unless I use containers (which are not recommended).

@IceFlom commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2024): Even if there is a repository, why not also make the rpm packages available? I would prefer that, regardless of whether there is a working repository. Currently I have no chance for an update on my Alma Linux system, unless I use containers (which are not recommended).

adam commented

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2024):

From memory, the reason why I removed them is that the RPMs produced by goreleaser was not perfect.

It might very much be a "perfect is the enemy of good" and that they were perfectly adequate, I am not knowledgable enough on RPM packaging.

I am happy to turn them on again, but I dont want to end up in a continuous cycle of being criticised for the packages being released. We are willing to generate them with goreleaser, but not any large complicated pipeline.

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Nov 29, 2024): From memory, the reason why I removed them is that the RPMs produced by goreleaser was not perfect. It might very much be a "perfect is the enemy of good" and that they were perfectly adequate, I am not knowledgable enough on RPM packaging. I am happy to turn them on again, but I dont want to end up in a continuous cycle of being criticised for the packages being released. We are willing to generate them with goreleaser, but not any large complicated pipeline.

adam commented

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2024):

I'm updating the RPMs on COPR now for 0.23, and may push them all the way to 0.24 betas given the security fix.

I think the package is basically in a state now that it is ready to become an official Fedora package - I'll try to get that rolling soon.

As for EL* versions....headscale is not a good EPEL candidate due to the constantly moving golang requirements. I will either maintain it in COPR long term, or potentially add it to AlmaLinux's Synergy repository.

I can also try to get a PR made for some CI that will build RPMs locally here on GH that will be "up to snuff" in the way they are built.

PS @kradalby nice to meet ya back at ATO :)

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Dec 19, 2024): I'm updating the RPMs on COPR now for 0.23, and may push them all the way to 0.24 betas given the security fix. I think the package is basically in a state now that it is ready to become an official Fedora package - I'll try to get that rolling soon. As for EL* versions....headscale is not a good EPEL candidate due to the constantly moving golang requirements. I will either maintain it in COPR long term, or potentially add it to AlmaLinux's Synergy repository. I can also try to get a PR made for some CI that will build RPMs locally here on GH that will be "up to snuff" in the way they are built. PS @kradalby nice to meet ya back at ATO :)

adam commented

@dustymabe commented on GitHub (Dec 20, 2024):

I think the package is basically in a state now that it is ready to become an official Fedora package - I'll try to get that rolling soon.

awesome! any chance I could throw you some embarrassingly small $ contribution to buy you a coffee or something. OR could send a small donation to some project in your name that is able to take donations.

@dustymabe commented on GitHub (Dec 20, 2024): > I think the package is basically in a state now that it is ready to become an official Fedora package - I'll try to get that rolling soon. awesome! any chance I could throw you some embarrassingly small $ contribution to buy you a coffee or something. OR could send a small donation to some project in your name that is able to take donations.

adam commented

@Justinzobel commented on GitHub (Feb 6, 2025):

Any way we can get the docs updated to indicate that the Copr is provided by a trusted contributor to the project?

@Justinzobel commented on GitHub (Feb 6, 2025): Any way we can get the docs updated to indicate that the Copr is provided by a trusted contributor to the project?

adam commented

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Feb 10, 2025):

I think the package is basically in a state now that it is ready to become an official Fedora package - I'll try to get that rolling soon.

awesome! any chance I could throw you some embarrassingly small $ contribution to buy you a coffee or something. OR could send a small donation to some project in your name that is able to take donations.

No, but if you reeeeally want to throw $ somewhere send it to the AlmaLinux OS Foundation :)

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Feb 10, 2025): > > I think the package is basically in a state now that it is ready to become an official Fedora package - I'll try to get that rolling soon. > > awesome! any chance I could throw you some embarrassingly small $ contribution to buy you a coffee or something. OR could send a small donation to some project in your name that is able to take donations. No, but if you reeeeally want to throw $ somewhere send it to the AlmaLinux OS Foundation :)

adam commented

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Feb 10, 2025):

The primary reason this is still not an "official" Fedora upstream package is because of the constant flow of breaking changes. I'd like to see things stabilize a bit more between updates as within Fedora we can't really do breaking changes within a given release cycle - especially on the EPEL side.

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Feb 10, 2025): The primary reason this is still not an "official" Fedora upstream package is because of the constant flow of breaking changes. I'd like to see things stabilize a bit more between updates as within Fedora we can't really do breaking changes within a given release cycle - especially on the EPEL side.

adam commented

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372850

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Jun 14, 2025):

The package has been submitted for review in Fedora proper. For EPEL it will remain in COPR for now - I do hope to eventually bring it to EPEL as well.

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Jun 14, 2025): The package has been submitted for review in Fedora proper. For EPEL it will remain in COPR for now - I do hope to eventually bring it to EPEL as well. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372850

adam commented

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Jun 14, 2025):

@jonathanspw the problem is that the package can not be used with a version check. The RPM version returns:
$ headscale version
dev
which is non-usable value.

This is fixed in RPM 0.26.1-3.

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Jun 14, 2025): > [@jonathanspw](https://github.com/jonathanspw) the problem is that the package can not be used with a version check. The RPM version returns: > > ``` > $ headscale version > dev > ``` > > which is non-usable value. This is fixed in RPM `0.26.1-3`.

adam commented

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/headscale

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Jul 29, 2025):

headscale is available in Fedora rawhide.

@jonathanspw commented on GitHub (Jul 29, 2025): headscale is available in Fedora rawhide. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/headscale

adam commented

@Justinzobel commented on GitHub (Jul 31, 2025):

Thanks. I think this can be closed now as it will flow down to Fedora and EPEL versions as it is tested.

@Justinzobel commented on GitHub (Jul 31, 2025): Thanks. I think this can be closed now as it will flow down to Fedora and EPEL versions as it is tested.

adam commented