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" <[email protected]> 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
