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 <wmo...@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.
