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 <[email protected]> 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. > >
