Installation Usability

After fighting with the install for more hours than I would like to admit, I
think there could be some changes made, to improve the ease of it, just a
little. Right now RT seems to be written by perl programmers (ya I came up
with that all on my own) for perl programmers. The config files aren’t just
standard flat files that values get read out of. There is a mix of ’ vs "
. That I still can’t make heads or tails out of. What is the difference
between these three?

Set($Organization , “example.com”);

&

Set($CorrespondAddress , ‘RT::CorrespondAddress.not.set’);

&

Set($WebBaseURL , “http://RT::WebBaseURL.not.configured:80”);

The difference isn’t what is important, it is the fact to a non perl
programmer like myself this makes little if no sense. I do have a little
programming background so things like the ; at the end of lines do make
sense, but should they have to?

Why not make the setup and install easy for people that have no programming
experience (I know scary thought to have admins like these running loose,
but they do exist).

Also it took me sometime debugging before I realized that the config file
was loaded at apache runtime, and not called from the rt scripts. It never
hinted in the manual that you needed to restart Apache when you changed a
config directive. I don’t know enough about performance with perl, but is
much lost on having a flat file parsed similar to httpd.conf or php.ini
(where there isn’t a huge mess of syntax to worry about) , and have the
values be read at RT login or as they are needed?

Anyway complements to the programmers that have done a great job so far. By
far the best trouble ticket framework out there, and yes I know it is under
dev, but now I’m close to bald.

Miles

winmail.dat (4.62 KB)

There is a mix of ’ vs " . That I still can’t make heads or tails
out of. What is the difference between these three?

In your examples, there’s no difference. ’ is a literal quote, and "
will expand things. ie:

Set($Foo, ‘$bar’); -> sets $Foo to $bar

Set($Foo, “$bar”); -> sets $Foo to whatever $bar was set to.

Why not make the setup and install easy for people that have no programming
experience (I know scary thought to have admins like these running loose,
but they do exist).

I’m somewhat torn about this. On one hand, a very user friendly install
and config process allows more people to use RT. On the other hand, it
lets unqualified people deploy RT poorly, frustrating users and adding
a support burden to the RT community. Of course, I have no connection
to Best Practical, and have no idea what their feelings are. I’ve
always found RT trivial to install and configure.

I expect developer time is more of an issue anyhow.

Also it took me sometime debugging before I realized that the config file
was loaded at apache runtime, and not called from the rt scripts. It never
hinted in the manual that you needed to restart Apache when you changed a
config directive.

This is documented in several different places. Along with a note
saying that restarting apache is insufficient, and that you need a
full stop and start.

I don’t know enough about performance with perl, but is
much lost on having a flat file parsed similar to httpd.conf

you know httpd.conf is also only read on apache start?

seph

There is a mix of ’ vs " . That I still can’t make heads or tails
out of. What is the difference between these three?

In your examples, there’s no difference. ’ is a literal quote, and "
will expand things. ie:

Set($Foo, ‘$bar’); -> sets $Foo to $bar

Set($Foo, “$bar”); -> sets $Foo to whatever $bar was set to.

I might be lost in the rigors of the syntax, but I’m pretty sure their
were differences in the my examples. First one had " second one had '
and third one had ". Now I can’t see a reason for that.

I guess my main point is that, it would be nice to stick to a
convention, when you design a config file. And document your deviations
from it.

I’m somewhat torn about this. On one hand, a very user friendly
install
and config process allows more people to use RT. On the other hand, it
lets unqualified people deploy RT poorly, frustrating users and adding
a support burden to the RT community. Of course, I have no connection
to Best Practical, and have no idea what their feelings are. I’ve
always found RT trivial to install and configure.

Aside from my outgoing mail problem RT was trivial to install and
configure, and I feel that I have it running fine. Only thing that I
find confusing is how the config file is layedout. I can still manage
it, but I can’t explain it. I feel this has mostly to do with the fact
that I don’t have a grasp on perl which I don’t feel should be a
prerequisite.

I expect developer time is more of an issue anyhow.

As do I

This is documented in several different places. Along with a note
saying that restarting apache is insufficient, and that you need a
full stop and start.

Guess I missed that one.

I don’t know enough about performance with perl, but is
much lost on having a flat file parsed similar to httpd.conf

you know httpd.conf is also only read on apache start?

Yes that was more of an example of a file with easy syntax, not of
loading at RT runtime, I can’t think of an example of runtime right now,
maybe that should tell me something.

Miles