On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 01:26:47PM +0200, Erik Skultety wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:32:42AM +0200, Michal Prívozník wrote: > > It's been a while since libvirt-snmp was actively developed. Now it > > receives only libvirt-ci related commits. The code compiles with > > net-snmp-5.9.3 but the freshly released net-snmp-5.9.4 [1] breaks > > compilation [2]. Now, libvirt-snmp has this crazy architecture, where > > some sources are manually generated from src/LIBVIRT-MIB.txt, then > > edited (added code to talk to libvirt) and then added to git. > > > > This is labor extensive and since I don't think libvirt-snmp is actually > > used I'd like to sunset it. According to repology [3] only Gentoo (and > > its clones) has the latest version (released ~5 years ago). And I doubt > > it has any real users there. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > 1: https://sourceforge.net/projects/net-snmp/files/net-snmp/5.9.4/ > > 2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=912582 > > 2: https://repology.org/project/libvirt-snmp/versions > > > > Michal > > > > Per our private discussion Michal, Peter, and I concluded that archiving the > project in GitLab is a harmless operation that can be undone at any point in > time, so I went ahead and toggled the flag. Yes, archiving is the right thing to do in this scenario, and is trivially reversed. We've already got a bunch of other archived repos :-) With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
