[Koha] ANNOUNCE: Koha perl dependency RPMs for Red Hat 9

[Paul Gear]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tim Bell wrote:
> ...
> And regarding open source, there are many reasons why installation
> is often harder than for a similar commercial application.  But the
> blame for that should usually be shared between the open-source
> application and the open-source operating system it runs on.  My own
> experience is that Debian GNU/Linux makes it much easier to install
> software than RPM-based distributions (such as Red Hat).  But
> there's no free lunch: packaging software for Debian is harder
> because of the more stringent quality controls which are required.

I never have understood, and still don't understand, why people think
typing 'rpm -Uvh packagename' is hard.

Red Hat doesn't have the advantage/disadvantage of being a single
unified project.  Every man and his dog makes RPM packages, many of
them not free, so there is no authoritative source from which to
resolve dependencies.  Thus, the responsibility to find the correct
packages is left with the user.  However, that still doesn't make it
hard to install software.

> ...
> What does all this mean for Koha?  Well, I'm not a Koha developer
> (not even a user yet, although I hope to persuade our library one
> day), but here are the options as I see them to make installation
> easier:
>
>   1. Provide Koha packaged for each OS you want to support (e.g. Red
>      Hat, Debian, SuSE, etc., or Windows even).  In some cases this
>      might require also supplying the required supporting packages
>      (which is what started this whole discussion thread, I
>      believe).

What other way is there?  Users don't compile, users install.  The
FreeBSD/Gentoo philosophy of making every end user a build engineer is
ludicrous, in my opinion.  I started programming in C over 15 years
ago, but i am not the slightest bit interested in recompiling ls and
vi and other core utilities when i install an OS (not to mention
wasting breath and time sitting there watching it recompile).  For
widespread use, an installable package native to the given OS is
essential.

>      The packaging of Koha for different distributions could be
>      contributed by people other than core development people if
>      necessary.

I would say this is essential.  If you're Debian people and it works
for you, there's no incentive to make RPM packages.  If you're like me
and can't stand seeing any software on the box not being controlled by
the native software management system, the incentive is there.

>   2. Provide Koha packaged for a single Linux distribution, and
>      possibly incorporated on a custom Linux install CD image.

In my experience, this makes it a pain to install for people who want
to use the software but are competent with a different OS, and more
significantly, requires people to have a dedicated server if they
don't already have a like system.

This was recently illustrated for me by the content filtering system
CensorNet.  It is a Debian-based standalone distribution that combines
Dan's Guardian with a web frontend and an image filter that
(theoretically) blocks certain types of images based on content.

However, since i'm more familiar with Red Hat, installing LAN cards
was a pain, as was their access control (based upon MAC addresses
rather than IP addresses - they assume people will run DHCP with
dynamic addressing).  So the software was not a good fit for my
environment and i decided not to use it, because sticking with the
distribution i know means saved time and headaches.

>   3. Improve the install scripts to check for required Perl modules
>      and install them from CPAN if necessary.

Those of us in the RPM mould find CPAN installation intolerable (not
to mention a pain), because you can't find out all the packages that
are installed from one interface.  That's why i made the RPMs to
provide perl dependencies.

> ...
> But I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that users need to
> be realistic in their expectations of the installation process.  To
> quote (possibly misquote) Einstein, things should be made as simple
> as possible, but no simpler.

Having installed two different versions of Koha from scratch now, on
two different versions of Red Hat, my opinion is that the installation
process could be made quite a bit simpler (at least on Red Hat ;-) by
providing preconfigured defaults for most of the installation
parameters (not the library parameters that Paul P. mentioned earlier,
just the installation-related stuff like paths, ports, hostnames,
etc.).

If i get a chance i might try to whip up an RPM that does this in the
next few weeks/months.  I think it might require some adjustments to
the installer, but i'm sure the Koha team will be willing to accept
patches.  :-)

Paul
http://paulgear.webhop.net

P.S.  Are my packages going to be put on sourceforge?  Don't i deserve
my millisecond of glory?  :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+9uAZ0yv0OWRYqWwRApE1AKDO8XbOypRzIewMVN6y0BMv/FmpgQCfZmf9
sBcbIMNxWtsXV1JD7lw2dEo=
=mAyp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----