Mailing List Archive: Re: Bug#847514: RFP: libamazon-s3-perl -- a portable client library for working with and managing Amazon S3 buckets and keys.

Re: Bug#847514: RFP: libamazon-s3-perl -- a portable client library for working with and managing Amazon S3 buckets and keys.

dom at earth

Dec 11, 2016, 5:05 AM

Post #1 of 4 (2574 views)

Permalink

[CCing rt-devel@lists.bestpractical.com]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 11:11:56AM +0000, Christopher Hoskin wrote:
> Amazon::S3 is a fork of Net::Amazon::S3.
>
> "This need for this module arose from some work that needed to work
> with S3 and would be distributed, installed and used on many various
> environments where compiled dependencies may not be an option.
> Net::Amazon::S3 used XML::LibXML tying it to that specific and often
> difficult to install option. In order to remove this potential barrier
> to entry, this module is forked and then modified to use XML::SAX via
> XML::Simple."
>
> Since Net::Amazon::S3 is already packaged for Debian as
> libnet-amazon-s3-perl, the motivation for the fork does not apply to
> us. Also, Net::Amazon::S3 seems more actively maintained upstream
> (most recent release 2014 as opposed to 2009 for Amazon::S3).
>
> I'm therefore wondering if patching RT to use Net::Amazon::S3 might be
> a better option? (I don't know how much work this would involve?)

I did think of this, but I assume that it wouldn't be in RT upstream's
interest to accept such a patch (for the reason stated in the above
justification for the fork), nor in Debian's interest to permanently
deviate from upstream in this way.

As for the concern about the Amazon::S3 being unmaintained - I
haven't done a detailed investigation but I would guess that the fact
that RT adopted it in their new release means that it is at least good
enough for them.

Upstream: can anyone comment on the decision to go with Amazon::S3
rather than Net::Amazon::S3?

Cheers,
Dominic.
---------
RT 4.4 and RTIR training sessions, and a new workshop day! https://bestpractical.com/training
* Los Angeles - January 9-11 2017

Re: Bug#847514: RFP: libamazon-s3-perl -- a portable client library for working with and managing Amazon S3 buckets and keys. [ In reply to ]

jbrandt at bestpractical

Dec 13, 2016, 6:29 AM

Post #2 of 4 (2562 views)

Permalink

On 12/11/16 8:05 AM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> [CCing rt-devel@lists.bestpractical.com]
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 11:11:56AM +0000, Christopher Hoskin wrote:
>> Amazon::S3 is a fork of Net::Amazon::S3.
>>
>> "This need for this module arose from some work that needed to work
>> with S3 and would be distributed, installed and used on many various
>> environments where compiled dependencies may not be an option.
>> Net::Amazon::S3 used XML::LibXML tying it to that specific and often
>> difficult to install option. In order to remove this potential barrier
>> to entry, this module is forked and then modified to use XML::SAX via
>> XML::Simple."
>>
>> Since Net::Amazon::S3 is already packaged for Debian as
>> libnet-amazon-s3-perl, the motivation for the fork does not apply to
>> us. Also, Net::Amazon::S3 seems more actively maintained upstream
>> (most recent release 2014 as opposed to 2009 for Amazon::S3).
>>
>> I'm therefore wondering if patching RT to use Net::Amazon::S3 might be
>> a better option? (I don't know how much work this would involve?)
>
> I did think of this, but I assume that it wouldn't be in RT upstream's
> interest to accept such a patch (for the reason stated in the above
> justification for the fork), nor in Debian's interest to permanently
> deviate from upstream in this way.
>
> As for the concern about the Amazon::S3 being unmaintained - I
> haven't done a detailed investigation but I would guess that the fact
> that RT adopted it in their new release means that it is at least good
> enough for them.
>
> Upstream: can anyone comment on the decision to go with Amazon::S3
> rather than Net::Amazon::S3?

The best we can come up with is that Amazon::S3 may have been slightly
easier to install because of dependencies. We have actually just been
looking at the same thing and considering switching to Net::Amazon::S3.
As mentioned, it's being actively maintained. It also has options to
manipulate metadata in S3, which we may need for some future work.

We will likely be investigating this option and testing. If someone were
to make the switch and report back with results, that would help with
our evaluation.

Jim
---------
RT 4.4 and RTIR training sessions, and a new workshop day! https://bestpractical.com/training
* Los Angeles - January 9-11 2017

Re: Bug#847514: RFP: libamazon-s3-perl -- a portable client library for working with and managing Amazon S3 buckets and keys. [ In reply to ]

dom at earth

Dec 14, 2016, 4:34 AM

Post #3 of 4 (2556 views)

Permalink

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:29:02AM -0500, Jim Brandt wrote:
>
> On 12/11/16 8:05 AM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> >[CCing rt-devel@lists.bestpractical.com]
> >
> >On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 11:11:56AM +0000, Christopher Hoskin wrote:
> >>Amazon::S3 is a fork of Net::Amazon::S3.
> >>
> >>"This need for this module arose from some work that needed to work
> >>with S3 and would be distributed, installed and used on many various
> >>environments where compiled dependencies may not be an option.
> >>Net::Amazon::S3 used XML::LibXML tying it to that specific and often
> >>difficult to install option. In order to remove this potential barrier
> >>to entry, this module is forked and then modified to use XML::SAX via
> >>XML::Simple."
> >>
> >>Since Net::Amazon::S3 is already packaged for Debian as
> >>libnet-amazon-s3-perl, the motivation for the fork does not apply to
> >>us. Also, Net::Amazon::S3 seems more actively maintained upstream
> >>(most recent release 2014 as opposed to 2009 for Amazon::S3).
> >>
> >>I'm therefore wondering if patching RT to use Net::Amazon::S3 might be
> >>a better option? (I don't know how much work this would involve?)
> >
> >I did think of this, but I assume that it wouldn't be in RT upstream's
> >interest to accept such a patch (for the reason stated in the above
> >justification for the fork), nor in Debian's interest to permanently
> >deviate from upstream in this way.
> >
> >As for the concern about the Amazon::S3 being unmaintained - I
> >haven't done a detailed investigation but I would guess that the fact
> >that RT adopted it in their new release means that it is at least good
> >enough for them.
> >
> >Upstream: can anyone comment on the decision to go with Amazon::S3
> >rather than Net::Amazon::S3?
>
> The best we can come up with is that Amazon::S3 may have been slightly
> easier to install because of dependencies. We have actually just been
> looking at the same thing and considering switching to Net::Amazon::S3. As
> mentioned, it's being actively maintained. It also has options to manipulate
> metadata in S3, which we may need for some future work.
>
> We will likely be investigating this option and testing. If someone were to
> make the switch and report back with results, that would help with our
> evaluation.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for confirming. Because of the time constraints in getting a
stable version of RT 4.4 into Debian before the freeze, I think the
preference at this point will be to stick with the current setup;
Amazon::S3 is now in Debian.

Cheers,
Dominic.

---------
RT 4.4 and RTIR training sessions, and a new workshop day! https://bestpractical.com/training
* Los Angeles - January 9-11 2017

Re: Bug#847514: RFP: libamazon-s3-perl -- a portable client library for working with and managing Amazon S3 buckets and keys. [ In reply to ]

jbrandt at bestpractical

Dec 14, 2016, 8:59 AM

Post #4 of 4 (2556 views)

Permalink

On 12/14/16 7:34 AM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:29:02AM -0500, Jim Brandt wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/16 8:05 AM, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
>>> [CCing rt-devel@lists.bestpractical.com]
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 11:11:56AM +0000, Christopher Hoskin wrote:
>>>> Amazon::S3 is a fork of Net::Amazon::S3.
>>>>
>>>> "This need for this module arose from some work that needed to work
>>>> with S3 and would be distributed, installed and used on many various
>>>> environments where compiled dependencies may not be an option.
>>>> Net::Amazon::S3 used XML::LibXML tying it to that specific and often
>>>> difficult to install option. In order to remove this potential barrier
>>>> to entry, this module is forked and then modified to use XML::SAX via
>>>> XML::Simple."
>>>>
>>>> Since Net::Amazon::S3 is already packaged for Debian as
>>>> libnet-amazon-s3-perl, the motivation for the fork does not apply to
>>>> us. Also, Net::Amazon::S3 seems more actively maintained upstream
>>>> (most recent release 2014 as opposed to 2009 for Amazon::S3).
>>>>
>>>> I'm therefore wondering if patching RT to use Net::Amazon::S3 might be
>>>> a better option? (I don't know how much work this would involve?)
>>>
>>> I did think of this, but I assume that it wouldn't be in RT upstream's
>>> interest to accept such a patch (for the reason stated in the above
>>> justification for the fork), nor in Debian's interest to permanently
>>> deviate from upstream in this way.
>>>
>>> As for the concern about the Amazon::S3 being unmaintained - I
>>> haven't done a detailed investigation but I would guess that the fact
>>> that RT adopted it in their new release means that it is at least good
>>> enough for them.
>>>
>>> Upstream: can anyone comment on the decision to go with Amazon::S3
>>> rather than Net::Amazon::S3?
>>
>> The best we can come up with is that Amazon::S3 may have been slightly
>> easier to install because of dependencies. We have actually just been
>> looking at the same thing and considering switching to Net::Amazon::S3. As
>> mentioned, it's being actively maintained. It also has options to manipulate
>> metadata in S3, which we may need for some future work.
>>
>> We will likely be investigating this option and testing. If someone were to
>> make the switch and report back with results, that would help with our
>> evaluation.
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Thanks for confirming. Because of the time constraints in getting a
> stable version of RT 4.4 into Debian before the freeze, I think the
> preference at this point will be to stick with the current setup;
> Amazon::S3 is now in Debian.

Yep, understood, and that should be fine for now as it works for the
current feature set.

Thanks for your work keeping RT current in Debian!

Jim

---------
RT 4.4 and RTIR training sessions, and a new workshop day! https://bestpractical.com/training
* Los Angeles - January 9-11 2017