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

[Jim Brandt]

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 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.

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