[rt-users] RT3 & RH 7.3 ? + future recommendation

[Walt Reed]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 02:24:25PM +0200, rainer at ultra-secure.de said:
> christian janssen said:
> > currently I'm running RT 2.0.13 for a small TTS and quite happy :-).
> >
> > But now I should set up a test system for another dep. for this install I
> > want to use RH7.3, because of the Problems with RH8 / RH9. Is this "easy"
> > possible? [also other "demo" services are running on this system].
> >
> > If they maybe really want to use RT for this much more bigger dep. I'm
> > thinking to use e.g.
> > * Debian woody [maybe sarge] !
> > * new redhat release => Fedora
> > * ?
> 
> 
> https://www.redhat.com/apps/support/errata/
> 
> I'm tempted to recommend RHAS or SLES8/UL1 (I'll SLES8 soon), but from
> past experience I'd say you'll end-up compiling most of the stuff yourself
> anyway (PERL, and with that mod_perl and the modules via CPAN).
> Because, basically, if you install lot's of modules via CPAN, your
> "certification" might go away and your vendor won't support your
> installation anymore.

Yeah, I would tend to stay away from RH at this point. FreeBSD or Debian
make very good choices.

Frankly though, I usually compile all my own major apps for whatever
platform. This means apache, perl, mod_perl, mysql, and a smattering of
other things (in the case of RT.)

The problem you have with vendor binaries is that they usually don't
come configured exactly the way you need them, or they are at the wrong
version, etc. Also, when the vendor changes crap, you don't have to
rebuild everything since you are not using the vendors binaries.

Woody is I think still at perl 5.6 which is too old for RT3, and many of
the other binaries are old as well. Woody as a base stable platform however,
is an excellent choice (with your own perl, apache, etc.)