The upcoming self-hosting instructions look like they will only support container-based installation methods, when baremetal servers are still common.
Proposal
I was wondering whether upcoming self-hosting instructions could also document hosting in non-docker environments. The main use case would be for sysadmins with a partially existing tech stack (DB, livekit instance, reverse proxy) looking to maintain a modular setup.
In that sense, this is a generalisation of https://github.com/orgs/fluxerapp/discussions/1041 which asks about existing reverse proxies.
RexSystem1 voteoriginally by @adavi1995 on GitHub1 reply
Isn't the current configuration essentially a baremetal setup? You can modify the docker compose how you would like to use the app with your other services. I would personally like to know how to connect it to my livekit instance as well. Other than that - fresh machine/vm and just follow the instructions - thats still pretty baremetal.
RexSystem1 voteoriginally by @Holbormon on GitHub OP
I understand your point about docker-compose still allowing for some modularity by potentially slotting in existing services via the compose config. However, baremetal to me means deploying without docker or any other virtualisation service, which is also desirable for other reasons than modularity (though I acknowledge I cited that as my main use case).
2 comments
Comment by @adavi1995
Comment by @Holbormon
docker-composestill allowing for some modularity by potentially slotting in existing services via the compose config. However, baremetal to me means deploying without docker or any other virtualisation service, which is also desirable for other reasons than modularity (though I acknowledge I cited that as my main use case).