On Monday, 23 May 2016 9:08:20 AM AEST Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Did anything happened here in the past 4+ months?
Not much from packaging prospective. Upstream however show some signs of
improvement as they've started using GitHub:
https://github.com/moosefs/moosefs
> Dmitry setted the
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 08:41:27AM +0100, Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki wrote:
> > Obvious way to improve packaging would be to address Lintian warnings,
> > introduce support for Systemd etc. Sorry I don't have time for in-depth
> > review and at the moment I have no intention to sponsor MooseFS...
On 18 Jan, 2016, at 8:35, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:23:30 AM Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki wrote:
>> On 15 Jan, 2016, at 15:10, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>>> I had a glimpse at the packaging in the source archive 3.0.69 and I think
>>> it
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:23:30 AM Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki wrote:
> On 15 Jan, 2016, at 15:10, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > I had a glimpse at the packaging in the source archive 3.0.69 and I think
> > it needs much more work before it could be uploaded (let alone my
> > objections
On 15 Jan, 2016, at 15:10, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:52:21 PM Piotr Robert Konopelko wrote:
>> I am looking for a sponsor for our team's package - MooseFS
>
> I had a glimpse at the packaging in the source archive 3.0.69 and I think it
> needs much
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:52:21 PM Piotr Robert Konopelko wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for our team's package - MooseFS
I had a glimpse at the packaging in the source archive 3.0.69 and I think it
needs much more work before it could be uploaded (let alone my objections
against
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:52:17 PM Piotr Robert Konopelko wrote:
> Of course I think MooseFS is better,
I'd much appreciate if you could elaborate on details how MooseFS is better.
I could not find anything to support that claim.
> Apart this I don't think, that LizardFS maintainer would "replace"
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:44:16 PM Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 12, Piotr Robert Konopelko wrote:
> > If you loose Master Server, user action is needed: he can run another
> > Master Server e.g. basing on medatada collected on Metalogger (sometadata
> > is *not* lost) or
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Piotr Robert Konopelko wrote:
> I forgot to mention, that there is a fork of MooseFS in Debian repository
> already, called LizardFS.
Please let the security team know so that they can add the fork to
their code copies metadata.
> On 13 Jan 2016, at 3:53 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Piotr Robert Konopelko wrote:
>
>> I forgot to mention, that there is a fork of MooseFS in Debian repository
>> already, called LizardFS.
>
> Please let the security team know so that they
On Jan 12, Piotr Robert Konopelko wrote:
> > Can you clarify this point? moosefs.com explains that high availability
> > features are available only in the proprietary version of the software.
> If you loose Master Server, user action is needed: he can run another
>
I forgot to mention, that MooseFS fork - LizardFS is a fork
of *old* MooseFS version - 1.6.27-5 which is a far behind
2.0.x (stable) or 3.0.x (curent / testing).
(Far behind = since MFS 1.6.x a lot of features have been
added and a lot of improvements in algorithms have been made,
full list is
> Can you clarify this point? moosefs.com explains that high availability
> features are available only in the proprietary version of the software.
Of course.
MooseFS components in free version are highly available but Master Server.
It means, that if for some reason you loose e.g. whole
I forgot to mention, that there is a fork of MooseFS in Debian repository
already, called LizardFS.
Best regards,
--
Piotr Robert Konopelko
MooseFS Technical Support Engineer | moosefs.com
On Jan 12, Piotr Robert Konopelko wrote:
> Distinctive features of MooseFS are:
>
> * High availability
Can you clarify this point? moosefs.com explains that high availability
features are available only in the proprietary version of the software.
--
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 10:44 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> Or a server crashes, or a daemon has a bug, etc...
I agree.
Best regards,
--
Piotr Robert Konopelko
X-Debbugs-Cc: piotr.konope...@moosefs.com, debian-de...@lists.debian.org,
debian-mentors@lists.debian.org, d...@moosefs.com
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear Mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for our team's package - MooseFS
Package name : moosefs
Version
>Il Martedì 12 Gennaio 2016 22:52, Piotr Robert Konopelko
> ha scritto:
>I forgot to mention, that MooseFS fork - LizardFS is a fork
>of *old* MooseFS version - 1.6.27-5 which is a far behind
>2.0.x (stable) or 3.0.x (curent / testing).
>
>(Far behind = since MFS
(wrong hotkey)
Hi,
If you think it is a full and better replacement of LizardFS, you need to talk
with LizardFS maintainer, reachable at
https://packages.qa.debian.org/l/lizardfs.html
cheers,
Gianfranco
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 11:41 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna
> wrote:
>
> (wrong hotkey)
> Hi,
>
> If you think it is a full and better replacement of LizardFS, you need to talk
>
> with LizardFS maintainer, reachable at
> https://packages.qa.debian.org/l/lizardfs.html
20 matches
Mail list logo