[rt-users] RT and the Perl Dependency Nightmare...

[Ruslan Zakirov]

On 9/9/05, Ben Goodwin <ben at atomicmatrix.net> wrote:
> My thoughts below aren't necessarily what I believe; rather, they're to
> invoke additional thought on this discussion.
> 
> While the fact that RT relies on modules rather than reinventing the wheel
> is a Good Thing, there are benefits and drawbacks.  Exploring them again is
> probably a good exercise even if it's been done before - RT and its users
> continually change.
> 
> For example, in the single distribution scenario, not only would
> installation be easier, but general support would be easier as well; instead
> of 1000 permutations of versions and bugs, you have 1.  Imagine if Firefox
> required a large number of modules that are largely maintained by others.
> Would it be as successful?
Please, don't mix different things. Firefox is client side software.
RT is SERVER side, this means by default that people who install it
should have more knowledge. Let's stop this conversation here. RT has
much dependencies right now and IMHO nobody could change this.

But you can at least make current installation system better. You
don't need to know RT internals, but you should know perl a little,
here is tasks you could do:
* rt-test-dependencies script
** require more user friendly reports
*** should hide building process, and only report that module
successfuly installed
*** should report errors to file with additional info about users perl
and instructions how to use this file
** could do smart things:
*** rt-test-dependencies script uses CPAN.pm, AFAIK this module allow
install not only latest available module, but also particular version
you want, so script could fallback to previouse versions if latest
fails to install.
*** also it's easy to hack this script to use other software instead
of CPAN.pm, I even have such patch somewhere, I used it to install RT
deps via Gentoo's g-cpan programm(something like cpan2rpm for gentoo).

Fix this and installation process would be more painless

> 
> It's surely an interesting debate that's almost religious in nature (like
> the "which linux distro is better" question) and has obvious pro's and
> con's.  Creating a single package would surely not be easy to do, either.
> 
> To Ruslan's point - maybe someone does need to spend the time to make (*and
> maintain*) a robust (hopefully somehow multiplatform) package to cater to
> the crowd who, for whatever reason, can't run RT in its current form.  Such
> a task is not to be underestimated, however.  We'd be dealing with different
> distributions, operating systems, and architectures.  In any case, this
> isn't a small or easy conversation.  Right now what it all really comes down
> to is each individual's needs and the best way to satisfy them.
Prefer change "the best" to "the fastest".

> 
> Also remember what Best Practical is from a company standpoint.  They don't
> make and sell a commercial product - they create open source software and
> draw revenue from things like support, training, and special customizations.
> It's a different model than a lot of people are used to.
> 
>         -=| Ben
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ruslan Zakirov [mailto:ruslan.zakirov at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:55 PM
> > To: Les Mikesell
> > Cc: Ben Goodwin; rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
> > Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT and the Perl Dependency Nightmare...
> >
> > Now, you all just complain, but you can take Paulo's RPMs and update
> > specs to new versions and publish it, can't you? Yes, you can. Change
> > the situation.
> > There is ebuild for Gentoo. There is deb packages. Look into it, I
> > think it's good examples, you can learn from it.
> >
> > Ask your bosses to fund such activity, it would be good feedback for
> > using RT free.
> >
> > It's open source, but you have alternative way sales at bestpractical.com
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Best regards, Ruslan.