[WBEL-users] RedHat Bugzilla RPM

bishop bishop@platypus.bc.ca
Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:06:56 -0700

Joe Brouhard wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:14:07 -0500, Kirby C. Bohling
> <kbohling@birddog.com> wrote:
>>        I looked around a while back, and I couldn't find any RPM's for
>>it.  I think most of the problem is that it has a number of perl
>>dependencies, and well Perl isn't terribly well RPM'ed for CPAN
>>things (there are tools to automate it, but the majority of CPAN
>>packages aren't RPM'ized).

I have a half-rolled one.  It installs, if I remember correctly, but one 
needs to work afterwards to finish it up -- needs passwords and stuff at 
the point of merging data into the mysql.  It's not as simple as I'd 
like it to be, where it just installs via rpm-i without further required 
work.  Unfortunately, we're running into a limitation of RPM, here, though.

Want the SRPM?

>>        For whatever it's worth, the pre-install script it comes with is
>>pretty good.  It does a find job.  I think part of the reason that
>>it's not terribly RPM'ized, is that it's seen as something you'll
>>customize quite a bit.  Looking at the change log, it appears to
>>have a number of upgrades that involve hand tweaking things because
>>of schema changes and whatnot.
> Figures.  I was wondering the same thing.. I've tried to install
> Bugzilla a few times myself, but run into Perl Dependency hell  (I
> think this was the 1.x series..)

There is no dependency hell, as long as one cpan2rpm's all the ones that 
come up.  Roll, add to apt, try to install again, etc.  Yeah, it's 
annoying, but it's perl:  all perl stuff has a million deps.  The good 
news is that the nest guy will have no dependency hell.

It's the First Penguin Problem, really, just restated.

>>        Bugzilla used to have a hard earned reputation for being a pain
>>to install.  I know the first time I looked at it, the
>>documentation, said roughly "if you can't install this without help,
>>you shouldn't be running it, this software is a work in progress".
>>It didn't bother to list dependencies, or anything.  It's much, much
>>nicer now then it used to be.
> With this in mind, I just may go with the install script instead..
> heavily depends on if I can find some good templates to customize the
> outlook.

Since mine's not too new, (2.16.4?) I was gonna grab, roll and start 
using RH's modified 2.17 kit.  In my case, the conversion always failed, 
so I've aborted it.  I really need to get my 2.16.6 rolled, I guess, and 
get that on there.

  - bish