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

Wed Oct 1 15:41:29 EDT 2003

I had a very similar problem, and I never managed to track down what was
causing it. Then one day I was attempting an install, and it went away.
This problem does seem to be one that should be tracked down and
documented, because out of all the install issues, this is the real killer
:)

Did you compile your own apache, mod_perl and mod_ssl from source ?
What compiler version did you use ?
What versions of apache and mod_perl ?

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Walt Reed wrote:

>Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:38:16 -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
>
>Galeon, Mozilla, IE, and Firebird have all been tried.
>
>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
>> >> >
>> >
>