Re: Bugzilla, RT3 and Trac

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 08:38 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 16:02 -0400, Paul Michael Reilly wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> >  > Mime-Version: 1.0
> >  > 
> >  > On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 01:41 -0400, Paul Michael Reilly wrote:
> >  > > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >  > > 
> >  > >  > Mime-Version: 1.0
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 09:51 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >  > >  > > On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 10:17 -0400, Paul Michael Reilly wrote:
> >  > >  > > > I am looking for an issue tracking tool running on Fedora, preferably
> >  > >  > > > open source, that will accept incoming email replies to a comment on a
> >  > >  > > > particular issue as a new comment for that issue.  I think Bugzilla
> >  > >  > > > can do it but I haven't figured out yet how to make it work.  Does
> >  > >  > > > anyone with experience using rt3 or trac know if either of these tools
> >  > >  > > > supports such strong email integration?
> >  > >  > > 
> >  > >  > > RT3 interacts very well with email and it is now packaged in fedora
> >  > >  > > extras so it shouldn't be difficult to install.
> >  > >  > It's in FE for > 1/2 year, and haven't receive _any_ PRs on it since
> >  > >  > then nor complaints about configuring it since then.
> >  > > 
> >  > > Get ready.  I'll have some for you real soon now.  Here's a start:
> >  > > 
> >  > > I found no simple, clear instructions along the lines of "Got Fedora
> >  > > 5?  A Web server already installed?  Sendmail already set up?  Well
> >  > > then, here's what you do: ..."
> >  > Do you expect me to explain how to set up a webserver and the MTA they
> >  > are using? This is beyond the scope of rt3.
> > 
> > No, of course not.  I was thinking that the Fedora RT3 RPM should
> > assume a default webserver setup, possibly running a post-install
> > script to verify that assumption.  If verified, then the RT3 web files
> > should be placed in /var/www/html/rt3, rather than /var/www/rt3.  This
> > is what seemed like a no-brainer to me.  I could be wrong however.
> 
> If the rt3 package was being reviewed for Extras now, it wouldn't be
> allowed in /var/www/rt3, let alone /var/www/html. Web apps in Extras
> must now go in /usr/share.
Yes, using /var/www/rt3 predates this change to the guidelines. 
Now, it should be move to /usr/share/rt3, but ... 

I am hesitant to do so for FC5 (rt3-3.5.4), because this is likely to
corrupt a users installation/kill customizations a user might have
applied.

I had planned to apply the mover to FC6 (which ships rt3-3.6.0), but
unfortunately, this triggers a bug somewhere in rt3. I am investigating,
and should this issue resolve, I'll move /var/www/rt3 to /usr/share/rt3
at least for FC6, and may-be for FC4 and FC5.

Technically, to rt3, it doesn't matter much if using /var/www/rt3
or /usr/share/rt3.

> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#WebApplications
> 
> > Configuring the mail-interface ... [this is the missing info that had
> > me ready to scream.  I would suggest we add aliases to etc/aliases
> > automagically for correspondence and comments.  Is one pair enough or
> > does there need to be a pair for each queue?]
> 
> Auto-adding aliases sounds like a bad idea to me; far too easy to get it
> wrong and/or clobber an existing address.
Exactly. The package can't guess on what the user wants. Any attempt to
automatically add the aliases must inevitably be wrong somewhere.

The same applies to most other settings in RT_SiteConfig.pm. Any
predefined setting must be wrong. Therefore the current strategy is to
stick to the "defaults" as close as possible.

> > SELinux ...
> 
> Does rt3 need any SELinux adjustments other than setting the context
> of /var/cache/rt3, which is already included in targeted policy on FC5?
Probably not anymore.

The manual chcon had been necessary on FC4 (IIRC, it was you, Paul who
proposed it) at the time rt3 had initially been packaged for FE. I'd be
glad to remove the remark on SELinux, if you (Paul) can definitively
confirm the chcon isn't necessary on any current FC4/FC5/FC6 (I am not
sufficiently familiar with SELinux to be able to judge).

Ralf




[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux