[rt-users] Abandoning RT Not for the faint of heart

Wed Oct 1 15:51:29 EDT 2003

Jesse: Just found the problem.

RT needs:
PerlSetupEnv On

Can you please add this to the documentation? 

On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 03:43:33PM -0400, Jesse Vincent said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 03:38:16PM -0400, Walt Reed wrote:
> 
> This sort of implies a problem with mod_perl, or the version of CGI.pm
> that you're using. I've occasionally seen issues with broken versions of
> some of the lower level modules doing things like this.
> 
> 	Jesse
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:25:25PM -0700, Alan Horn said:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > What browser you using ?
> > > 
> > > I've had serious problems with opera, which is a shame since its my
> > > preferred browser.
> > > 
> > > Mozilla and IE deal with this part better.
> > > 
> > > Of course, it could be something else, but thats my first guess.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Walt Reed wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:24:00 -0400
> > > >From: Walt Reed <rt at linuxguy.com>
> > > >To: Alan Horn <ahorn at deorth.org>
> > > >Cc: Walt Reed <rt at linuxguy.com>,
> > > >     "Sullivan, Robert (HQP)" <Robert.Sullivan at rhi.com>,
> > > >     rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > > >Subject: Re: [rt-users] Abandoning RT Not for the faint of heart
> > > >
> > > >I actually still have it installed on the fresh box. The problem I've
> > > >been having is that when I try and login, it dumps me right back to the
> > > >login screen. If you look back in the email achives of this list, my
> > > >guess is that the CGI object is not getting initialized. The session
> > > >cookie doesn't show up, and GET / POST arguments are not there when I
> > > >add some debugging code to print out things like %cookies %ARGS, $user,
> > > >etc. The problem is pretty low-level - before autohandler gets called.
> > > >
> > > >On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:07:07PM -0700, Alan Horn said:
> > > >>
> > > >> Walt,
> > > >>
> > > >> I understand where you're coming from on this. It took me a long time to
> > > >> get my head around RT, and I think you're similarly technical.
> > > >>
> > > >> The html::mason aspect of it is something I haven't really delved into it,
> > > >> since I don't need to radically customise the interface.
> > > >>
> > > >> You're right that the documentation isn't as great as it could be (for 2.0
> > > >> at least, I haven't really worked with 3.0 yet)
> > > >>
> > > >> I stuck with trying to get RT working because so many people suggested it
> > > >> to me, peoples who's opinions I respected.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've not seen any other freeware tool out there that comes close to the
> > > >> abilities of RT. Thats why I've gone from being a frustrated systems guy
> > > >> ready to throw it out the window, to being a huge RT advocate.
> > > >>
> > > >> Stick with it a little longer.. if you have any specific questions, send
> > > >> me an email. Apologies, but with workload lately I haven't been watching
> > > >> this list much. I've always had great responses from key members on the
> > > >> list though, once I figured out the basics. Once again, I agree that the
> > > >> barrier to entry could be significantly lowered :)
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >>
> > > >> Al
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Walt Reed wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:58:00 -0400
> > > >> >From: Walt Reed <rt at linuxguy.com>
> > > >> >To: "Sullivan, Robert (HQP)" <Robert.Sullivan at rhi.com>
> > > >> >Cc: 'Walt Reed' <rt at linuxguy.com>, rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > > >> >Subject: Re: [rt-users] Abandoning RT Not for the faint of heart
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Hmm. I had no intention of slamming anyone. If anything, pointing out
> > > >> >that the documentation is very weak should help prompt someone to fix
> > > >> >it. I am attempting to give constructive criticism. I posted quite a few
> > > >> >messages and only received one response by someone who wasn't able to
> > > >> >help (no fault on his part...) An inhouse Mason expert who has
> > > >> >developed dozens of large-scale mason-based applications could't figure
> > > >> >the thing out after spending several days on it.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I was perfectly willing to work with anyone to try and figure out what
> > > >> >went wrong, but nobody with the right expertise stepped up to the plate.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >BTW, I compile all my apps by hand - I'm no stranger to tough manual
> > > >> >configurations. It's VERY rare that I find something I can't work with.
> > > >> >I even recompiled apache, perl, and mod_perl on a new machine to attempt
> > > >> >to get this thing going with the exact same problem.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >If you like RT and are able to get it to work, Great! Don't switch. If
> > > >> >like me you can't get the thing to go, there are other alternatives -
> > > >> >you don't have to keep bashing your head into a brick wall.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 11:24:28AM -0700, Sullivan, Robert (HQP) said:
> > > >> >> Hi,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> While RT is not an easy program to get up and running and all evaluations of
> > > >> >> it say that it is not an easy install. The tool does work and work well. I
> > > >> >> agree that it would be nice if it was packaged and one could do a simple
> > > >> >> pkgadd. Also I think that Jesse and the rest of the users on this list do a
> > > >> >> very good job of helping out whene there are questions. I do not blame you
> > > >> >> for going with another product but I think it is a mistake to slam the users
> > > >> >> and author of the RT program.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> >> From: Walt Reed [mailto:rt at linuxguy.com]
> > > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:13 AM
> > > >> >> To: rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > > >> >> Subject: [rt-users] Abandoning RT
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Well, after spending several days trying to get it to work, and trying
> > > >> >> to debug the code, I decided to abandon my efforts to install RT. This
> > > >> >> is too bad because from a feature / demo perspective, RT looks great.
> > > >> >> Unfortuantely, the documentation is very weak, the code seems
> > > >> >> convoluted, and there doesn't seem to be a good way to debug the thing.
> > > >> >> The bottom line is that it just doesn't work.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I see a few other people struggling to get it working too. If you are
> > > >> >> one of those people, you may want to check out http://otrs.org/ which
> > > >> >> seems competitive, works, and seems to be currently maintained.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> >> rt-users mailing list
> > > >> >> rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > > >> >> http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Have you read the FAQ? The RT FAQ Manager lives at http://fsck.com/rtfm
> > > >> >_______________________________________________
> > > >> >rt-users mailing list
> > > >> >rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > > >> >http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Have you read the FAQ? The RT FAQ Manager lives at http://fsck.com/rtfm
> > > >> >
> > > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rt-users mailing list
> > rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> > http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> > 
> > Have you read the FAQ? The RT FAQ Manager lives at http://fsck.com/rtfm
> > 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.bestpractical.com/rt  -- Trouble Ticketing. Free.