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

Jim Brandt jbrandt at bestpractical.com
Wed Dec 14 11:59:01 EST 2016

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!


More information about the rt-devel mailing list