Officially supported OS versions
Koha Developers, As I try to get back in the swing of things after a long absence, I'm finding a lot of changes to Koha's dependencies to be particularly frustrating, as I need to add new package repositories or even upgrade my OS. This leads me to the question: What OS versions does Koha run on? This is both a descriptive question (what's true now) as well as a prescriptive one (what systems SHOULD Koha run on). I should think that Debian 6+ is a given. Any current Ubuntu LTS may also be appropriate, though the current situation has me unable to install a dependency on 10.04. In the past, I know that RedHat installs have been particularly vicious, and may not even be possible at this time. Having a list of supported OS versions would simplify the lives of the QA team, because we would only need to test those systems that we've agreed to support. If someone can get Koha working on another OS, more power to them, but I think it's reasonable for people with moderate technical skills to be able to get Koha up and running on recommended systems without too many steps. One implication of this would be that patches introducing dependencies not easily available on a supported system would be rejected or deferred until such time as they were easily available. So, for example, if a patch introduced a dependency that's packaged for Debian Wheezy, but not for Squeeze, it would not be added to Koha until Wheezy was released. Thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions? -Ian
Hi, On 08/17/2012 10:57 AM, Ian Walls wrote:
As I try to get back in the swing of things after a long absence, I'm finding a lot of changes to Koha's dependencies to be particularly frustrating, as I need to add new package repositories or even upgrade my OS.
As a data point for your descriptive question, Equinox uses Debian stable for Koha instance we host.
This leads me to the question: What OS versions does Koha run on? This is both a descriptive question (what's true now) as well as a prescriptive one (what systems SHOULD Koha run on).
I should think that Debian 6+ is a given.
I suggest expressing it more generically -- say "Koha is supported on Debian stable" (natch) or "Koha is supported on Debian stable and oldstable" (which would be my preference.
Any current Ubuntu LTS may also be appropriate, though the current situation has me unable to install a dependency on 10.04.
I suggest targeting the current and the immediate previous LTS, with the LTS third-back being optional.
In the past, I know that RedHat installs have been particularly vicious, and may not even be possible at this time.
I think RHEL/Fedora/CentOS support is basically dependent on enough people stepping up who are willing to maintain it.
One implication of this would be that patches introducing dependencies not easily available on a supported system would be rejected or deferred until such time as they were easily available. So, for example, if a patch introduced a dependency that's packaged for Debian Wheezy, but not for Squeeze, it would not be added to Koha until Wheezy was released.
I think that's a little too strict -- since most of Koha's dependencies are pure Perl modules, the bar for getting a module packaged for newstable into stable-backports is relatively low. In other words, I suggest we target Debian stable + stable-backports (and oldstable + oldstable-backports). Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Director of Support and Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: gmc@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org
Greetings,
I suggest targeting the current and the immediate previous LTS, with the LTS third-back being optional.
I would suggest we don't go back the third LTS. Don't even acknowledge it. It's dead next year. Koha is newer than that. The further we go back, the more we have to support. From a support perspective, that's a potential nightmare. Not to mention, I had a bad time attempting 3.8.x on 8.04 -- I gave up after a few of dependency failures. GPML, Mark Tompsett
On 2012-08-18, at 4:31 AM, Galen Charlton wrote:
Hi,
On 08/17/2012 10:57 AM, Ian Walls wrote:
As I try to get back in the swing of things after a long absence, I'm finding a lot of changes to Koha's dependencies to be particularly frustrating, as I need to add new package repositories or even upgrade my OS.
As a data point for your descriptive question, Equinox uses Debian stable for Koha instance we host.
This leads me to the question: What OS versions does Koha run on? This is both a descriptive question (what's true now) as well as a prescriptive one (what systems SHOULD Koha run on).
I should think that Debian 6+ is a given.
I suggest expressing it more generically -- say "Koha is supported on Debian stable" (natch) or "Koha is supported on Debian stable and oldstable" (which would be my preference.
1+ for debian stable and old-stable, please :) cheers, Mason -- KohaAloha, NZ
another +1 for debian stable and oldstable -- Marc Balmer micro systems, http://www.msys.ch/ Tel. +41 61 383 05 10, Fax +41 61 383 05 12 Am 17.08.2012 um 23:22 schrieb Mason James <mtj@kohaaloha.com>:
On 2012-08-18, at 4:31 AM, Galen Charlton wrote:
Hi,
On 08/17/2012 10:57 AM, Ian Walls wrote:
As I try to get back in the swing of things after a long absence, I'm finding a lot of changes to Koha's dependencies to be particularly frustrating, as I need to add new package repositories or even upgrade my OS.
As a data point for your descriptive question, Equinox uses Debian stable for Koha instance we host.
This leads me to the question: What OS versions does Koha run on? This is both a descriptive question (what's true now) as well as a prescriptive one (what systems SHOULD Koha run on).
I should think that Debian 6+ is a given.
I suggest expressing it more generically -- say "Koha is supported on Debian stable" (natch) or "Koha is supported on Debian stable and oldstable" (which would be my preference.
1+ for debian stable and old-stable, please :)
cheers, Mason -- KohaAloha, NZ
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
I am running on FC16. (But with some manual cpan installing sometimes..) Currently, often new dependencies creep quite silently into Koha. PerlDependencies.pm is updated afterwards in a followup or so. Developers later on stumble over it while git-fetching and upgrading. I agree that we could/should improve this situation. Communicate first before sending a patch with a new dependency? Marcel ________________________________ Van: koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org [koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org] namens Ian Walls [koha.sekjal@gmail.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 17 augustus 2012 16:57 To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Onderwerp: [Koha-devel] Officially supported OS versions Koha Developers, As I try to get back in the swing of things after a long absence, I'm finding a lot of changes to Koha's dependencies to be particularly frustrating, as I need to add new package repositories or even upgrade my OS. This leads me to the question: What OS versions does Koha run on? This is both a descriptive question (what's true now) as well as a prescriptive one (what systems SHOULD Koha run on). I should think that Debian 6+ is a given. Any current Ubuntu LTS may also be appropriate, though the current situation has me unable to install a dependency on 10.04. In the past, I know that RedHat installs have been particularly vicious, and may not even be possible at this time. Having a list of supported OS versions would simplify the lives of the QA team, because we would only need to test those systems that we've agreed to support. If someone can get Koha working on another OS, more power to them, but I think it's reasonable for people with moderate technical skills to be able to get Koha up and running on recommended systems without too many steps. One implication of this would be that patches introducing dependencies not easily available on a supported system would be rejected or deferred until such time as they were easily available. So, for example, if a patch introduced a dependency that's packaged for Debian Wheezy, but not for Squeeze, it would not be added to Koha until Wheezy was released. Thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions? -Ian
Greetings, I am an Ubuntu user. Koha runs well under 10.04 (3.6.x) and 12.04 (3.6.x, 3.8.x), though there are some quirks for the dependencies. This is remedied by taking the appropriate “add a repo step” in wiki page here: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Koha_3.8_on_Debian_Squeeze#To_use It is important to make sure you have the correct repo added and the key installed. I typically have done tarball installs. Though, I am slowly coming around to the idea of koha-common in my Ubuntu environments. Admittedly, I needed something working, and didn’t have time to look at the koha-common install process. I have written a handy-dandy script (check_deps.sh) which uses apt-file to: 1) determine which is missing in {OS}.{version}.packages files – though currently only debian and ubuntu have those kinds of files in the misc_install directory 2) determine what needs to be installed (can be apt-get’d) 3) determine what needs to be CPAN’d, because it’s not listed via apt-file. I can’t remember which bug report I attached it to. I also attempted an RPM-based version of it for yum (yuminstall.sh). However, the number of dependencies missing under CentOS 6.3 (5.8 won’t work by default, unless you upgrade perl) was just too high and my netbook too underpowered. I gave up on attempting Fedora because of my underpowered netbook. However, the script does list what is missing, and if there was man power to RPM package them (like that is going to happen), then it would be possible to support RPM-based OS’s too. However, given the man-power required. I don’t think it is recommended. In the past some people have exerted much effort trying to get it to run under Windows. Frankly, I use virtualbox with a wired connection as a bridged adapter, no need to get it to run natively. And again, I use Ubuntu on my VMs. The problem is that RPM-based OS’ tend to be behind in releasing libraries. It is even worse for Windows versions (e.g. ActiveState? Perl). So, to summarize my take on preferences: 1) Debian 6+ first and foremost – use packages (koha-common – see wiki page above) if you aren’t developing, use git if you are. (http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Version_Control_Using_Git) tarballs are a waste of your time (I had problems getting the tarball to build under debian – yes, I tried for 3.6.3 – but this was before I was aware of the koha-community repository.) 2) Ubuntu 10.04 and 12.04 LTS – try to use packages, but at least set up the koha-community repository. Tarballs work, but are not recommended. 3) Some other DEB-based OS, though if given the choice, please choose Debian. Did I say how wonderful the packages were if you aren’t developing? And use git if you are? 4) If you have no other choice and must use something other than a DEB-based OS, tarball is your only option, and we make no promises that it will work or that we’ll be able to help you. So, what OS versions does Koha run on? Whatever you can get it to work on, but Debian 6+ and Ubuntu 10.04 LTS and Ubuntu 12.04 LTS are preferred. When Ubuntu 14.04 LTS comes out, it is my understanding that 10.04 support will be dropped.
One implication of this would be that patches introducing dependencies not easily available on a supported system would be rejected or deferred until such time as they were easily available. So, for example, if a patch introduced a dependency that's packaged for Debian Wheezy, but not for Squeeze, it would not be added to Koha until Wheezy was released.
If it is merely a perl dependency, couldn’t it be packaged up on the koha-community repository? Wouldn’t a newer version in main replace the older koha-community version? I ask out of technical ignorance. If it behaves that way, then I don’t see why it would have to hold back a patch until an OS release. Hope this rambling is/was mildly useful. GPML, Mark Tompsett
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Mark Tompsett <mtompset@hotmail.com>wrote:
In the past some people have exerted much effort trying to get it to run under Windows. Frankly, I use virtualbox with a wired connection as a bridged adapter, no need to get it to run natively. And again, I use Ubuntu on my VMs. The problem is that RPM-based OS’ tend to be behind in releasing libraries. It is even worse for Windows versions (e.g. ActiveState? Perl).
For the record: Should someone attempt running Koha on Win32, be sure to use Strawberry Perl as it has all of the mandatory packages available. Kind Regards, Chris
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ian Walls <koha.sekjal@gmail.com> wrote:
Koha Developers,
As I try to get back in the swing of things after a long absence, I'm finding a lot of changes to Koha's dependencies to be particularly frustrating, as I need to add new package repositories or even upgrade my OS.
This leads me to the question: What OS versions does Koha run on? This is both a descriptive question (what's true now) as well as a prescriptive one (what systems SHOULD Koha run on).
I should think that Debian 6+ is a given. Any current Ubuntu LTS may also be appropriate, though the current situation has me unable to install a dependency on 10.04. In the past, I know that RedHat installs have been particularly vicious, and may not even be possible at this time.
Having a list of supported OS versions would simplify the lives of the QA team, because we would only need to test those systems that we've agreed to support. If someone can get Koha working on another OS, more power to them, but I think it's reasonable for people with moderate technical skills to be able to get Koha up and running on recommended systems without too many steps.
One implication of this would be that patches introducing dependencies not easily available on a supported system would be rejected or deferred until such time as they were easily available. So, for example, if a patch introduced a dependency that's packaged for Debian Wheezy, but not for Squeeze, it would not be added to Koha until Wheezy was released.
Thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions?
+1 for supporting both Debian releases (stable and oldstable) and +1 for 'officially' supporting the last two LTS Ubuntu releases. When I say supporting the last two LTS releases I mean that we should develop with those in mind (creating the missing packages, etc). If a more recent (non-LTS) version has a package the LTS doesnt, we need to provide that package and not rely on people using the non-LTS... I belive this will make everything smoother to maintain, and we also have a very responsive community to assist those that have specific needs (e.g. their infrastructure uses X distro/version). As I was said several times: supporting every distro out-of-the-box would be great. If a distro becomes popular in our user base then we will find the way to suppport it (sponsors, interested companies, etc). Regards To+
Ian asked:
This leads me to the question: What OS versions does Koha run on? This is both a descriptive question (what's true now) as well as a prescriptive one (what systems SHOULD Koha run on).
I think the role of koha-community should be to describe what Koha runs on. This has a consequence: I'd like developers and RMs to be pretty conservative about adding new dependencies or adopting features only found in new versions of dependencies, because each time that happens, we might kill support for some version of something. Which brings me to this...
I should think that Debian 6+ is a given. Any current Ubuntu LTS may also be appropriate, though the current situation has me unable to install a dependency on 10.04. In the past, I know that RedHat installs have been particularly vicious, and may not even be possible at this time.
In general, I don't think we should be supporting any particular distributions as a community. However, there are two small(?) exceptions to that: 1. the community distributions like debian and fedora are in a special place. We're all volunteers and we can develop packages on koha-community as an experimental place, before they get handed over into the distributions. I'd be very happy to see packages of koha and dependencies for debian and fedora; 2. some of the support providers may want to offer packages privately-controlled distributions for commercial reasons - if they want to do that linked from koha-community, that's fine, but if they stop resourcing it, I don't think the community should expect volunteers to work for the distribution businesses for free. So, in short: maybe offer packages for debian and fedora and any other similar ones, else just describe what works and help any third-party offerings. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
So, in short: maybe offer packages for debian and fedora and any other similar ones, else just describe what works and help any third-party offerings.
Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
MJ, i agree on all your points :) just 1 more question … any volunteers out there for a Koha Redhat/Fedora package-builder person? :)
participants (9)
-
Chris Nighswonger -
Galen Charlton -
Ian Walls -
Marc Balmer -
Marcel de Rooy -
Mark Tompsett -
Mason James -
MJ Ray -
Tomas Cohen Arazi