Re: [rt-users] Frustrating attempts to install RT3.8 from RPM
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
Re: [rt-users] Frustrating attempts to install RT3.8 from RPM
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 wmo...@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 -- Gary L. Greene, Jr. IT Operations Minerva Networks, Inc. Cell: (650) 704-6633 Office: (408) 240-1239
Re: [rt-users] Frustrating attempts to install RT3.8 from RPM
A few questions about your openSuSE packages. Are you using the devel:languages:/perl repository for your perl dependencies? Would you be willing to make your rpms available or at least the .spec? -- Darin Perusich Email: darin.perus...@ctg.com Office: 716-888-3690 Cell: 716-807-4589 -Original Message- From: rt-users-boun...@lists.bestpractical.com [mailto:rt-users- boun...@lists.bestpractical.com] On Behalf Of Gary Greene Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 2:52 PM To: Wes Modes; rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com Subject: Re: [rt-users] Frustrating attempts to install RT3.8 from RPM 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 wmo...@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 -- Gary L. Greene, Jr. IT Operations Minerva Networks, Inc. Cell: (650) 704-6633 Office: (408) 240-1239 The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please contact the sender and delete this material from this computer.
Re: [rt-users] Frustrating attempts to install RT3.8 from RPM
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 wmo...@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
Re: [rt-users] Frustrating attempts to install RT3.8 from RPM
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 wmo...@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 wmo...@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 -- Gary L. Greene, Jr. IT Operations Minerva Networks, Inc. Cell: (650) 704-6633 Office: (408) 240-1239
Re: [rt-users] Frustrating attempts to install RT3.8 from RPM
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 wmo...@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 wmo...@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
Re: [rt-users] Frustrating attempts to install RT3.8 from RPM
The CentOS version is currently 3.8.1, so they're not really a good fit at this time. The SuSE ones are 3.8.8. If you're still interested in them, I can put them on a server outside my office for download (bandwidth at work is lacking.) Far as I know, the changes in /etc are marked config noreplace, however, changing them to config save is fairly easy in the srpm. On 3/11/10 5:24 PM, Wes Modes wmo...@ucsc.edu wrote: 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 wmo...@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 wmo...@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
Re: [rt-users] Frustrating attempts to install RT3.8 from RPM
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