Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: [SOLVED] New Install Switch

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    965
    Rep Power
    10

    Default [SOLVED] New Install Switch

    OK, maybe I'm nitpicking here, but I just did an upgrade from FOSS version 5.0.2 to 5.0.4 and found that I had to add an undocumented "platform-override" switch to the install script because I'm running CentOS instead of the "official" RHEL. I just don't understand the need to have this switch. There is and always was a spot in the install where it informed you that you were trying to install a version of the software that did not match the OS you were running; and it makes you acknowledge this before continuing. I don't think we need to start up the whole RHEL vs. CentOS compatibility, etc., etc., but surely the Zimbra folks realize that many users do use CentOS, and will continue to do so. At the very least this change should have been documented in the Release Notes. Also, the point where the install stops you and tells you that you need to add this switch is several steps in. If the install can detect that I'm not running the "correct" OS for the version I am trying to install, do it right up front so I don't have to waste time.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,017
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    I don't disagree so perhaps a RFE ? And it rhyms Moving it to the very start of the install script would make a lot of sense.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    965
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Yeah, I can create an RFE. I guess I was looking for some feedback as to why the switch was even added. To me it seems like an unnecessary jab at the people running Zimbra under some flavor of CentOS. Anyone who has followed these forums knows this is a touchy subject. And yes, I do realize that this applies to other flavors of Linux as well, such as people trying to run on the latest version of Ubuntu. However, I have to think the CentOS is number one on the list of "unsupported" installs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    965
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    RFE 26459 has been created for this issue.

  5. #5
    phoenix is offline Zimbra Consultant & Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Vannes, France
    Posts
    23,587
    Rep Power
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soxfan View Post
    Yeah, I can create an RFE. I guess I was looking for some feedback as to why the switch was even added. To me it seems like an unnecessary jab at the people running Zimbra under some flavor of CentOS. Anyone who has followed these forums knows this is a touchy subject. And yes, I do realize that this applies to other flavors of Linux as well, such as people trying to run on the latest version of Ubuntu. However, I have to think the CentOS is number one on the list of "unsupported" installs.
    It's likely to have been added to make sure people understood that their installation environment is unsupported, although it's always been mentioned in the install script you'd be surprised how many people don't see it. It isn't a dig a CentOS users, all unsupported operating systems get the same message - there's no discrimination.
    Regards


    Bill


    Acompli: A new adventure for Co-Founder KevinH.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    965
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Thanks Phoenix. I'm probably being overly sensitive to this touchy subject. As I said in my last response, I realize that it affects everyone trying to install on a wrong or unsupported platform; not just us CentOS users. However, I still think the majority of people who will find out about this message will be CentOS users. My points were:
    1. The change wasn't documented.
    2. The prompt came several steps into the install. (Hopefully my RFE will fix this.)
    3. There is already a prompt in there, where the default is "N", and you have to change it to "Y". I can see blowing through an EULA when installing a game on a PC or something like that, but anyone blindly answering prompts when installing a collaboration suite like Zimbra is just asking for trouble, beyond trying to install on an unsupported OS. Besides, did they really have to terminate the install? Couldn't they have put in an "Are you really sure?" prompt, or make you type something like "UNSUPPORTEDOS"?

    OK, I'm done with my ranting for the day. I think I'll get over this now

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Thatcher, AZ
    Posts
    5,606
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    So just to expand: this wasn't put in for CentOS. We don't care about that. If people want to run it on unsupported operating systems, go for it. Just don't complain when it breaks.

    The reason we put it in, is because users were mistakenly upgrading their 32 bit system to x64 bits. We think this is because most people don't actually read the link before downloading. They also missed several of the warnings.

    So when you attempt to install 64-bits on a 32 bit system, the system doesn't like it. It's also pretty difficult to recover. So we opted for the switch.

    It just so happens that we check the OS using the getplat.sh tag to help prevent bad OS installations, and determine what the installer should do. CentOS isn't in there, so CentOS users get the error.

    So, I would suggest that if users want to pretend that they're RHEL users, change /etc/redhat-release

    Then you may not have issues

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    965
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Sorry, can't resist one more comment. If you're concerned about 64-bit installs on 32 bit systems, which is understandable, couldn't you check for only that, and stop the install with a clear message that this is the case.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Thatcher, AZ
    Posts
    5,606
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soxfan View Post
    Sorry, can't resist one more comment. If you're concerned about 64-bit installs on 32 bit systems, which is understandable, couldn't you check for only that, and stop the install with a clear message that this is the case.
    Write the code, and submit it. Don't forget to sign the contribution agreement, and we'll think about integrating it.

Similar Threads

  1. install oss fc7 not run well
    By epelaez in forum Installation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-05-2008, 03:26 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-27-2007, 12:49 PM
  3. Install before switch over
    By wkruchas in forum Installation
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 12:23 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-29-2006, 10:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •