[pkg-bacula-devel] Does the mtx package still have an "upstream" maintainer?

Wed Jun 9 18:57:50 BST 2021

Hi Will,
Yes it functions in its original manner.
I have RH rpm(s), the latest is mtx-1.3.12-17fnal.el7.x86_64. The repo url is https://ssasrv1.fnal.gov/en/slf7x/x86_64
Alexander

On Jun 9, 2021, at 12:39 PM, Will Sutton <will at sutton-family.org<mailto:will at sutton-family.org>> wrote:

Alexander,

Your code changes look good as a cursory glance. In the changes you made, do you think it would continue to function in its original manner as well as being callable from C and Python? If so, we could combine efforts. I have a feeling my .edu employer and .gov sponsor would be interested in this as well.

Will

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 11:43 AM Alexander Moibenko <moibenko at fnal.gov<mailto:moibenko at fnal.gov>> wrote:
We, at FNAL, for instance, use TS4500 LTO8 libraries with 10000 slots and tens of tape drives. The modified mtx code allows effective use of such library.
Alexander

> On Jun 7, 2021, at 5:18 AM, James Youngman <james at youngman.org<mailto:james at youngman.org>> wrote:
>
> I waited a while to give time for people who didn't immediately see
> this thread to chime in.  I hope everybody who wanted to has now had
> that opportunity.
>
> I think we have a rough consensus on what we'll do.  There are also
> some things which seem reasonable but which we didn't discuss yet that
> we should agree on.   Here's what I think we're agreed on:
>
> 1. We should create or select a git repo where master corresponds to
> the stable release, plus patches approximately representing the
> consensus choice of a few Linux distros [see item (b) below].  That
> is, where we can identify patches in use in (more than one of) Red Hat
> / Centos / Debian we should adopt those into master.
> 2. We should adopt a project structure with multiple active
> maintainers.   Will and I have, I believe, already volunteered.
> Anybody else?
> 3. Our initial focus should be on showing clear signs of life and
> helping distros switch over to our now-actively-maintained upstream
> project.  This should be prioritised over feature development (we can
> use, for example, a branch such as "next" for feature development).
> This doesn't mean "no feature development" though, it's just not the
> most important aspect, initially.
>
> If we actually don't have a consensus on 1-3 above, please voice your concern.
>
> Things we have not yet discussed fully, but need to agree on:
>
> 4. How will we structure our maintainers team?   It seems reasonable
> to use a free-tier (as in $0) Github Organization
> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_organizations_plan&d=DwIFaQ&c=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA&r=qUUJfY9rcpnSDJD1RsKzrrBmsb6vkJm31XurldnXpOw&m=QR4ViIlfRZs_VwnmCjqtoNClS-tGth77OWsUsQwU7f8&s=uCieIOAHwHSoalWGwfwXnb1j63Xofn_y7IK_3EmVWv4&e= ).    That allows the
> organisation to have multiple "owners" and yet still costs nothing.
> I'm against the idea of using an individual's repo because it would
> mean that, once again, we'd have a single point of failure if that
> individual becomes inactive.  But I'm sure there are multiple ways to
> solve this part of the problem.   Opinions?
> 5. Naming is something we've not discussed.   If we create an
> "organisation" per (4) above for this, that forms a useful
> qualification to distinguish this version of mtx from the predecessor,
> but then we will need a name for the team/organisation.   Suggestions
> anybody?
> 6. What forum will we use for discussion?   Keep the existing
> SourceForge mtx-general list?  Or something new?   (my opinion on this
> is that using mtx-general might generate uncertainty about the status
> of what we're doing which is basically a fork)
>
> Some other things I think need a volunteer but aren't likely to be contentious:
>
> a, Do we have any contacts with teams working with much larger
> libraries?   Folks on this thread seem mostly to be using LTO
> libraries in the 24-48 slot range.   It would be good to be able to
> get occasional testing feedback from libraries having many more slots,
> so I think we should try to find collaborators (even if just for
> occasional testing) who have large libraries.    We could use a
> virtualised large library with iSCSI I suppose, but even setting those
> up is non-trivial.   Testing help from someone having a linear-only
> tape changer device would probably also be good.
>
> b. I think we should map out which baseline and which patches are
> currently in use in each distribution, so that our initial "master"
> branch doesn't include code changes likely to be perceived by dsitros
> as "risky".   I'm willing to look into this but if someone already did
> some of this work, that would be great.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 2:21 PM Will Sutton <will at sutton-family.org<mailto:will at sutton-family.org>> wrote:
>>
>> James,
>>
>> I am interested in keeping this project moving forward. The code seems very stable and mature, and my day job takes me more into the C an C++ side of things, so I can be a more competent maintainer as well. I have no problem sharing ownership with the right maintainers to keep it alive.
>>
>> I've been using this repo on arch for quite a while with my TL4000 and not encountered any issues.
>>
>> That being said, I've not heard anything from the original author since I created this repository.
>>
>> Carsten, I pulled your patches into their own branch. I think it should be identical to the debian branch at this point. Feel free to send me any additional patches I might be missing.
>>
>> I pulled my repo in from here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__sourceforge.net_p_mtx_code_HEAD_tree_branches_stable-2D1.3_&d=DwIFaQ&c=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA&r=qUUJfY9rcpnSDJD1RsKzrrBmsb6vkJm31XurldnXpOw&m=QR4ViIlfRZs_VwnmCjqtoNClS-tGth77OWsUsQwU7f8&s=HkkYGzm8ObarTEbetswkNkCWneqHRfPRq4NTuekc-wU&e=
>>
>> At this point, the latest code is from soruceforge is 13 years old.
>>
>> I'd be thrilled to open dialog with the rest of you as well.
>>
>> William Sutton
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 6:15 AM Carsten Leonhardt <leo at debian.org<mailto:leo at debian.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I'm the Debian mtx package Maintainer.
>>>
>>> James Youngman <james at youngman.org<mailto:james at youngman.org>> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'd really like us to get to a place where there was a
>>>> community-driven and group-managed upstream project (so that we're not
>>>> singly-homed on one maintainer any more) where at least initial
>>>> releases are conservative in their changes, to encourage distributions
>>>> all to select the same upstream.   Right now, I don't have opinions on
>>>> what the basis (e.g. what repo) for that should be, and I'm aware that
>>>> naming might need some careful consideration.
>>>
>>> as far as I can see, most distributions have based their mtx package on
>>> the last stable version from Robert. I've tried to find all patches that
>>> other distributions use and added them to the Debian package. Later I've
>>> submitted them to Will for inclusion, but the version in Will's
>>> repository is based on Robert's development branch.
>>>
>>> From my point of view I'd prefer starting from Robert's last stable
>>> version plus the generally accepted patches.
>>>
>>> The patches applied for the Debian package can be found here:
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__salsa.debian.org_bacula-2Dteam_mtx_-2D_tree_master_debian_patches&d=DwIFaQ&c=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA&r=qUUJfY9rcpnSDJD1RsKzrrBmsb6vkJm31XurldnXpOw&m=QR4ViIlfRZs_VwnmCjqtoNClS-tGth77OWsUsQwU7f8&s=ke0-ii-UBkDvd0HwwF_1Ly4E6zf8xuMoGsd5CnqXzR8&e=
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Carsten
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, but a rather large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

--
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, but a rather large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-bacula-devel/attachments/20210609/e5759d68/attachment-0001.htm>