[rt-users] Why I am recommending 3.6 over 3.8 to my boss

[Todd Chapman]

I bet Best Practical would produce RPMs for you if you paid them to.

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Wes Modes <wmodes at ucsc.edu> wrote:

> Dear Boss:
>
> I strongly recommend going with the 3.6 version of RT.  The install takes a
> few minutes, and it otherwise meets all the requirements of our project.
>  Migration of old queues is simple.  There is cost savings in the near and
> long-term.
>
> There is no rpm of RT3.8 that works for RHEL (32 or 64 bit) and none seem
> to be forthcoming.  Someday perhaps someone will put one together, but it
> doesn't look like anytime soon.
>
> I CAN do a manual install of RT3.8 using the Best Practical install
> scripts.  It is not terribly hard.  However, the long-term costs of this are
> large.  The install scripts put all the binaries, configuration files, and
> libraries in the wrong places for RHEL/CentOS, and working outside the
> package manager means files could be clobbered at any time.  On the other
> hand, the rpms for RT3.6 use the package manager and 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.  The non-standard install using the scripts
> creates recurring costs in the future as the system is significantly more
> difficult to update and harder to maintain, like by a factor of 50 (five
> minutes compared to 4 hours).
>
> Additionally, the cost of migration of old content from 3.6 to 3.8 is
> unknown.
>
> Again, I will install either RT3.6 or RT3.8 but I need you to understand
> and acknowledge the costs of the choice.
>
> Wes
>
>
> Thanks to Gary Greene for the info about his latest centos rpm build.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rt-users/attachments/20101105/30f2b3c0/attachment.htm>