[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fwd: Re: Open-FCoE for Wheezy

Including debian-devel..

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Open-FCoE for Wheezy
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:31:01 +0530
From: Ritesh Raj Sarraf <rrs@debian.org>
Reply-To: rrs@debian.org
Organization: RESEARCHUT
To: debian-release@lists.debian.org

Any suggestions?

It is a new and expensive technology and hasn't seen much adoption yet.

On 12/02/2011 01:14 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Hello Release Team,
> Please provide me some Release readiness assistance for Open-FCoE's
> inclusion for Wheezy/Sid
> Open-FCoE [1], is a newer SAN technology to carry Fiber Channel traffic
> over Ethernet. The ethernet is generalized in the definition but in
> reality, a newer 10 GiB DCB Ethernet card is required for FCoE
> capabilities. Also to mention the refreshes required on the switch
> infrastructure.
> My initial hope was to get some access to FCoE hardware setup that I
> could spare for Debian. Unfortunately, for multiple reasons that didn't
> happen and I don't see having access to the hardware any time soon.
> Open-FCoE stack is currently in experimental. I have had no [bug]
> reports yet. Also the popcon stats is very low.
> The assistance I'm seeking from you is about its release readiness for
> Wheezy/Sid. Should I get these packages uploaded to Wheezy/Sid? There
> might not be many packaging errors, but with no real user testing in a
> production environment, I have no idea how the stack will behave.
> Should I go ahead with the inclusion of Open-FCoE into the Debian archive?
> [1] http://www.open-fcoe.org

Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs
Debian - The Universal Operating System

--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Dec  9, 2011 at 18:31:01 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:

> Any suggestions?
> It is a new and expensive technology and hasn't seen much adoption yet.
I think debian-devel would be a better place for your question.


--- End Message ---

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: