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

[Wes Modes]

That is nice to see that you made a well-crafted rpm that you can be
proud of.   I wonder what would happen if a later version of RT3 became
available via EPEL.  Would it nicely replace the files (maybe moving
stuff to rpmsave's)  or would all hell break loose?

What RT3 version is your centos rpm build?

When and where would your centos rpm be available to play with?

W.

On 11/3/2010 4:45 PM, Gary Greene wrote:
> The CentOS ones follow the RH way of directory layout, with the caveat that
> I chose to put the other modules that normally get pulled in via cpan in the
> perl5 site_lib hierarchy to assure that a rouge update from rpmforge or
> upstream CentOS would be able to be installed without odd file conflicts.
>
> The SuSE ones I did slightly differently as I think having the main RT stuff
> strewn around /usr a little odd. The CPAN stuff is in the perl5 site_lib
> hierarchy as before, but the main HTML/Mason templates/RT only specific
> modules/plugins stuff are in /srv/www/htdocs/rt. Configuration stuff is in
> /etc/rt and the plugin configuration directory is /etc/rt/local/...
>
> If I were to do over the CentOS ones, I'd likely do the same as I did with
> SuSE.
>
> On 3/11/10 4:36 PM, "Wes Modes" <wmodes at ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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