Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
Hello Dietmar You confirm exactly what I was afraid of. I fully agree that the package of Linbit's drbdmanage shouldn't be in your package but I don't agree concerning the DRBDPlugin.pm in '/usr/share/perl5/PVE/Storage'. This perl script is the interface between PVE and DRBD. A stable or coordinated versioning between 'PVE package - DRBDPlugin.pm - DRBD package' will be critical. A version change on Linbit's side or PVE side without adaption of the plugin could hit a stable environment. I don't know who should be the owner/developer of 'DRBDPlugin.pm', but anyway it needs a coordination especially if PVE/DRBD9 is used in production. So I understand Michele's hesitation. Regards, Enrica -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: drbd-user-bounces at lists.linbit.com [mailto:drbd-user-bounces at lists.linbit.com] Im Auftrag von Dietmar Maurer Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. Januar 2017 10:20 An: Roland Kammerer <roland.kammerer at linbit.com>; drbd-user at lists.linbit.com Betreff: Re: [DRBD-user] Testing new DRBD9 dedicated repo for PVE > In the end the license - and sure IANAL - is a "do whatever you like, > but don't interfere with LINBIT's support business". IMO that's it. > This was not a move against Proxmox at all, there are other vendors > not playing nice... Just writing that because on the ML I have the > impression that there is some kind of "Proxmox vs. LINBIT". It isn't. I fully agree here. > For the "has to remove [...] completely": Puh, dangerous territory to > comment on, but that was the decision of Proxmox. No, your new license implies that. It would be illegal to provide support (in any way) for drbdmanage. Besides, it would not make any sense to have two repositories including the same packages - what for? _______________________________________________ drbd-user mailing list drbd-user at lists.linbit.com http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user