On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 08:09:05AM -0700, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 12:44:16PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > 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? > > > > > > 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 :-) > > We should clean up the container registry for this and other archived > repositories too. I'm betting they take up a non-trivial amount of > our group's storage quota for no good reason. Turns out you can't delete containers if the project is archived :-) So I've temporarily unarchived it, and am deleting the containers and all the CI pipelines too, which should eliminate all major storage usage. 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 :|
