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

[Dominic Hargreaves]

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 at 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.