The original idea of ZipZen is to make developers' lives easier when they have to release binaries.
GitHub/GitLab Releases exist, but none of them are more than a “container” for release artifacts. Artifactory and Nexus are bloated and require more setup/money than most of us want to deal with, if not mandatory.
As I truly wanted to give developers something that lifts off weight from them, this week my focus was on repository support. But a bit differently than what you may expect: no configuration required to set up an APT, YUM, or Helm repository.
So, the results of this week:
Some CLI improvements
Reworked, clearer documentation
Zero-configuration APT, YUM, and Helm repository support
Obviously, I'm proud of the repository support. Developers only have to upload a .dev, .rpm, or .tgz/tar.gz package, and everything is sorted out automatically. If a GPG key is set, the apt repository and .rpm packages will be signed as well.
Next up, I'll mostly work on public release pages and getting more feedback on the platform. Also, I'll probably add CI/CD integration examples as well, so it is going to be a no-brainer to use with GitHub/GitLab.
The challenge for this month is growing and spreading that ZipZen exists, but I hope the IndieHackers community can help out with that.
Zero-config setup for APT, YUM, and Helm is a huge win. Most devs hate fiddling with configs just to ship binaries, so this feels like it removes a lot of friction. Are you planning to add support for other package managers down the line, like npm or PyPI?
Hey! Thanks for the comment and question! Right now, I'm planning to have the public release pages, so users can see what files a release contains (with checksum, etc.).
However, this is something on my to-do list. As soon as I get a feature request for this, I'm going to bump its priority to deliver it soon. I'm also planning to implement Homebrew tap/bottle, Docker/OCI support, private releases, and custom domains.
Do you have anything in mind that could be useful?