[RFE] Support for omaha 3.0 protocol for "Other" packages

[evgenyh]

Current situation

omaha client being built against latest omaha sources unable to interact with nebraska server due to protocol incompatibility

Impact

• not usable for newer omaha clients

Ideal future situation

• add support for omaha v 3 clients
• state in documentation what exact protocol versions are supported

[pothos]

Hi, thanks, yes, the current client lib we use is https://github.com/kinvolk/go-omaha/ and so far version 3 is not fully supported. Would be good to find out what's missing and then make it a knob whether to send version 3 as opt-in for a Nebraska "application".

[evgenyh]

for example the top level element "request" must include "updaterversion" attribute instead of "version".
according to omaha documentation :
version: DEPRECATED - use updater and updaterversion instead The ID and version number of the client. Default: Undefined - compatible clients MUST always transmit this attribute. The version number MUST be one of the two following forms:

"A-V" where A is a client identifier, and V is the version number of client (e.g. "chromiumcrx-31.1.0.112").
"V" where V is the version number of the client (e.g. "1.3.23.9"). Compatible clients SHOULD NOT use this form, as it is reserved for Omaha Client.

=====================================================================
in reality clients compiled from resent versions of omaha source no more sending the "version" attribute at all and as result nebraska fails to process such requests.

This example represents only one of cases.
relevant documentation for omaha v3 can be found here

[tylerauerbeck]

@evgenyh It looks like that repo has been archived? Are there no plans to update to support v3.0? Or are there plans to fork that / relocate that repo to continue that work?

[evgenyh]

@tylerauerbeck I don't think it is archived, there is a commits within last month

[tylerauerbeck]

@evgenyh Last I checked I thought I had seen the repo archive at the top. But checking today, looks like you're correct and it's not there. Ignore me!