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

[Gary Greene]

Get yourself a copy of cpan2rpm. It simplifies creating the specs from the
ground up greatly.


On 5/11/10 12:49 PM, "Dallas Wisehaupt" <dallas at craigslist.org> wrote:

> If you search for "rt 3.8 spec file" you will find some spec files that
> do work for fedora and other variants. It wasn't too difficult to take
> one of those and morph it for our custom use.
> 
> Biggest issue I had was taking the time to package up perl dependencies
> as rpms to store in our repo long term. And after a few dot release
> upgrades the work has paid off.
> 
> Dallas
> 
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010, Todd Chapman wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

-- 
Gary L. Greene, Jr.
IT Operations
Minerva Networks, Inc.
Cell:   (650) 704-6633
Office: (408) 240-1239