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 :|