Re: [rt-users] RT 4 - status report
On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Ruslan Zakirov wrote: > If your crontool fails to write into file log then it's your mistake. > File log is not designed to be used in production, use syslog and/or > screen logging. I never said file log. That was easy to solve. I can set rights on a file log. The mason cache privileges get reset on every creation. > crontool doesn't use mason cache, but dashboards mailer can and it has > been fixed in 3.8.HEAD and the fix will be available in 3.8.3. Awesome to hear. >> In a perfect world, I want to install RT as a single user, then run a >> separate HTTP instance as that same user, so that RT is running >> within >> a single user account. I'm mostly there on a dev install, but I've >> already had to modify far too many files for it to be a simple patch. > As jesse suggested you can use --with-my-user-group option to do this. > developers use it successfully for ages :) Okay, if the official answer is that "this should work" then I'll file bugs against each thing that doesn't work. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] RT 4 - status report
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Jo Rhett wrote: > On Mar 20, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Jesse Vincent wrote: >>> That's good. Would this change improve the ability to run RT in a >>> virtual server environment, instead of having to pretty much commit >>> an >>> entire machine to it? The number of things which "must be done by >>> root" which don't actually need root permissions, and could run under >>> a more limited user is quite large. But they are difficult to >>> overcome with hacking the source due to assumptions built into the >>> code. >> >> Such as? >> >> I run RT configured "--with-my-user-group" all the time. > > > Such as rt-crontool. I fought through a week of trying to be able to > run rt-crontool as any user other than root, and it never succeeded. > If the mason-cache stuff was created using a consistent userid then we > could run rt-crontool as that user. If your crontool fails to write into file log then it's your mistake. File log is not designed to be used in production, use syslog and/or screen logging. crontool doesn't use mason cache, but dashboards mailer can and it has been fixed in 3.8.HEAD and the fix will be available in 3.8.3. > > In a perfect world, I want to install RT as a single user, then run a > separate HTTP instance as that same user, so that RT is running within > a single user account. I'm mostly there on a dev install, but I've > already had to modify far too many files for it to be a simple patch. As jesse suggested you can use --with-my-user-group option to do this. developers use it successfully for ages :) > > -- > Jo Rhett > Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source > and other randomness > > > > ___ > http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users > > Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com > Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com > > > Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. > Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com > -- Best regards, Ruslan. ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] RT 4 - status report
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:32:44PM -0700, Tom Lahti wrote: > > At the same time, we've moved RT from its own homegrown application > > framework to Jifty, Best Practical's next-generation web application > > platform. Jifty brings with it all sorts of new features which make it > > easier to build out web services and web applications with less code and > > easier support for modern Web 2.0 features. > > My big question here should be obvious: will RT 4.0 maintain the exact same > /REST/1.0/ API as RT 3.x? Yes. And if it doesn't, it's a bug. Once we get to "usable beta" status, please beat hard on it to make sure we cover all your cases. > > Secondarily, will it expose additional web services beyond that? /REST/2.0/ > perhaps? Yes. That's one of the things Jifty gets us 'free'. ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] RT 4 - status report
> At the same time, we've moved RT from its own homegrown application > framework to Jifty, Best Practical's next-generation web application > platform. Jifty brings with it all sorts of new features which make it > easier to build out web services and web applications with less code and > easier support for modern Web 2.0 features. My big question here should be obvious: will RT 4.0 maintain the exact same /REST/1.0/ API as RT 3.x? Secondarily, will it expose additional web services beyond that? /REST/2.0/ perhaps? -- -- Tom Lahti BIT Statement LLC (425)251-0833 x 117 http://www.bitstatement.net/ -- ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] RT 4 - status report
On Mar 20, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Jesse Vincent wrote: >> That's good. Would this change improve the ability to run RT in a >> virtual server environment, instead of having to pretty much commit >> an >> entire machine to it? The number of things which "must be done by >> root" which don't actually need root permissions, and could run under >> a more limited user is quite large. But they are difficult to >> overcome with hacking the source due to assumptions built into the >> code. > > Such as? > > I run RT configured "--with-my-user-group" all the time. Such as rt-crontool. I fought through a week of trying to be able to run rt-crontool as any user other than root, and it never succeeded. If the mason-cache stuff was created using a consistent userid then we could run rt-crontool as that user. In a perfect world, I want to install RT as a single user, then run a separate HTTP instance as that same user, so that RT is running within a single user account. I'm mostly there on a dev install, but I've already had to modify far too many files for it to be a simple patch. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] RT 4 - status report
> That's good. Would this change improve the ability to run RT in a > virtual server environment, instead of having to pretty much commit an > entire machine to it? The number of things which "must be done by > root" which don't actually need root permissions, and could run under > a more limited user is quite large. But they are difficult to > overcome with hacking the source due to assumptions built into the code. Such as? I run RT configured "--with-my-user-group" all the time. ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] RT 4 - status report
On Mar 20, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Jesse Vincent wrote: > At the same time, we've moved RT from its own homegrown application > framework to Jifty, Best Practical's next-generation web application > platform. Jifty brings with it all sorts of new features which make > it > easier to build out web services and web applications with less code > and > easier support for modern Web 2.0 features. That's good. Would this change improve the ability to run RT in a virtual server environment, instead of having to pretty much commit an entire machine to it? The number of things which "must be done by root" which don't actually need root permissions, and could run under a more limited user is quite large. But they are difficult to overcome with hacking the source due to assumptions built into the code. I've got RT working entirely within a virtual/shared web server environment, but it's a lot of work. And honestly, the "lot of work" has entirely to do with built-in-assumptions rather than actual problems that prevent its implementation that way. I'm trying to figure out how to document all of the work required for this. If I was to grab to 4.0 codebase and start finding and sending patches to prevent these kind of assumptions from being made, it would make me a lot happier. I'm also certain it would broaden the potential userbase and resolve a great many of the questions that come up on this list. Not that OTRS is as good as RT. But you can untar OTRS inside a shared virtual server and have it up and running without ever becoming root in 5 minutes. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
