[Nagiosplug-devel] Nagios plugins CPAN-like archive

Andreas Ericsson ae at op5.se
Thu Jul 14 14:01:08 CEST 2005

Ton Voon wrote:
> Thank you for your thoughts on the future plugin archive. Matthias  Eble 
> coined this as NP-CPAN, which I will use for now.
> In summary:
> Need to move away from contrib area. For: Richard Brodie, Sean  Finney, 
> Andreas Ericsson. Against: none.
> Control of names of plugins. Andreas thinks this is not possible and  I 
> would agree with him. However, I would like names not to clash  
> (thinking about simplified downloading). Matthias is worried about  
> check_http and check_http2, etc. I'm not sure we can control this in  
> any meaningful way, so a user will need to decide on which plugin  they 
> would use. I think if we could get a sense of how "maintained" a  plugin 
> is and other users feedback, this would help a user in making  a 
> decision on which to use.
> Quality issues. Sean is worried about quality of external plugins,  but 
> the point of this is to be able to unleash the community to  develop and 
> maintain their plugins themselves. Andreas is right:  current contribs 
> are not really QA'd and forks will happen. I think  Stanley Hopcroft 
> said it best: "CPAN is [...] absolutely  indispensable [...] because of 
> the high quality of __some__ of the  modules [and is a] dumping ground 
> for other modules of lower  quality". I think plugins will sink or rise 
> based on popularity and/ or quality, which will be unrelated to how 
> Nagios Plugins performs.
> Easy install. Richard mentions an unstable package for download,  which 
> shows some degree of "blessed" plugins by the project. As the  point is 
> to unleash, I don't think this is a reasonable expectation  because it 
> is again putting work onto this project. However, NP-CPAN  should have 
> some easy way of installing plugins.
> Certification. Sean thinks is a good idea, but also wants metrics on  
> whether audited, or scheduled for inclusion. Again, as my aim is to  
> unleash, I think auditing is an impossible objective. I would hope  that 
> some plugins come with test cases too, but that is fully up to  the 
> developer.
> Nagiosexchange. Sean says in his previous experience they seem  
> "reasonable" and given they have some infrastructure already there,  I'm 
> inclined to talk with them.
> So I think there is a consensus to do it. No one has really commented  
> on requirements, so here's my interpretation of the responses plus a  
> few of my own:
> MUST HAVE: mirroring of repository, last updated, non-clashing plugin  
> names

Skip the non-clashing plugin names. It won't last. Also, the entire site 
must be mirror-able through plain FTP or some such. wget and other 
web-mirroring programs have a tendency to include weird things and skip 
some others. A pure and simple lftp-style mirroring is the best.

> SHOULD HAVE: user feedbacks, certification results
> NICE TO HAVE: easy downloadability

I think that "easy downloadability" actually comes first, since a 
repository is completely useless unless the data can be extracted from 
it in a simple manner. User feedbacks is more like nice to have (it's 
not very used on CPAN, and I don't really think people will sit around 
and vote for various plugins).

> I think the must haves must be available for NP-CPAN to be endorsed,  
> with should haves as soon as possible.
> So, unless there are any objections by next Tuesday, I'll begin  
> discussions with Nagiosexchange if they can be our official repository.

Well, I had some objections, but for the sake of expediency you can 
simple disregard them.

Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson at op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Lead Developer

More information about the Devel mailing list