[rt-users] Frustrating attempts to install RT3.8 from RPM

[Wes Modes]

I presume that is CentOS5.  That would make me very happy as CentOS RPMs
should work for RHEL.

One thing I adore about well-built packages is that things are placed in
the right location for the OS.  For instance, the RT3 rpms put all the
config files in /etc, all the perl modules in the perl modules dir, and
the various tools in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin.

Is yours built that way, or does it keep to the Best Practical distro
locations?

i guess this means that no one has a solution to the problem I observed
with the rpm bundle I did find, ya?

Wes


On 11/3/2010 11:52 AM, Gary Greene wrote:
> Agreed. This is why I spent a week with cpan2rpm and built packages for both
> openSuSE (which we're transitioning to) and CentOS.
>
>
> On 3/11/10 11:21 AM, "Wes Modes" <wmodes at ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> Paul, sounds like you aren't a long term fan of Fedora, RHEL, or CentOS,
>> so I'm guessing yum feels like an inconvenience to you, especially when
>> it seems to be getting in the way of your desired install.
>>
>> I've been a sysadmin for 20 years and I've never been a fan of the make
>> 'n' break style of system administration.  There is no way I could
>> manage a score of machines, many with subtly different hardware, if I
>> had to build every package the old way.  As it is, I can spend a few
>> hours monthly updating the OS and all installed software on all of our
>> machines, with a simple "yum -y update"
>>
>> In my opinion, package managers like apt-get and yum are some of the
>> best things to happen to OS in a very long time.  Having installs
>> tracked and managed by package managers keeps complicated OSs and their
>> installed software up-to-date, eases system administration (especially
>> as the server to sysadmin ratio increases), increases scalability,
>> increases sysadmin efficiency, and creates standards for software
>> manufacturers. 
>>
>> If as a conservative sysadmin you prefer to operate well-back from the
>> bleeding edge anyway, the small trade-off in control is a small price to
>> pay.
>>
>> It is hardly the package manager's fault if a software manufacturer such
>> as Best Practical and its user community fail to create a package for
>> the latest software.  Compare that to software whose RPMs are kept
>> relatively up-to-date.
>>
>> Wes
>>
>> On 11/2/2010 3:49 PM, Paul wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2010 02:19 PM, Wes Modes wrote:
>>>> Hello, I have been struggling with attempts to install RT3.8 via RPMs.
>>>>
>>>> I know it is perfectly possible to install RT3.8 using the BP install
>>>> scripts and docs, but I'd prefer to do it through yum for system
>>>> sustainability, ease of updates and upgrades, etc.
>>> ...
>>>> If I can't resolve this, I will just forget about RT3.8 and stick with
>>>> RT3.6 of which there is a well-behaved RPM already in the EPEL repo.
>>>>
>>>> Wes
>>>>
>>> I'm currently going through a RT move from freebsd to rhel5 (long story,
>>> would rather stay with freebsd but don't have a choice here) and have
>>> found all kinds of annoying difficulties with yum (or, rather, the
>>> packages available.) When I realized that I was trying to stick with yum
>>> for ease of upgrades when yum was preventing me from easily keeping up
>>> to date, life got a lot easier.
>>>
>>> In the end I just let cpan install what it could and used yum for the
>>> things that gave me trouble in cpan. Using RT's configure and make
>>> targets is a lot easier and much more maintainable than having to roll
>>> my own rpm just to do it the yum way.
>>>
>>> Being stuck with an old version of the software in the name of easy
>>> upgrades didn't make sense to me.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Paul