[pkg-bacula-devel] Does the mtx package still have an "upstream" maintainer?
moibenko at fnal.gov
Wed Jun 9 18:57:50 BST 2021
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
On Jun 9, 2021, at 12:39 PM, Will Sutton <will at sutton-family.org<mailto:will at sutton-family.org>> wrote:
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.
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.
> 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
> 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:
>> 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:
>> 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...
More information about the pkg-bacula-devel