Forum OpenACS Development: acs-admin/install broken
I have just dumped the last corrupted installation (see Help please side node not found) only to discover that the Install software section in 5.3 http://openacs.org/projects/openacs/download/one-revision?revision_id=166602 no longer lists any packages. Can someone please restore this?
there are no application packages released for 5.3.0. The package channel lists all packages of the CVS repository marked as 5.3 or 5.3 compatible. Here is the list of the packages in the channel that you will get, when doing a install/upgrade from repository: http://openacs.org/repository/5-3/
For some time, the channel listed as well - incorrectly - all versions from CVS head.
You can get the packages from the 5.2 channel (see http://openacs.org/repository/5-2/) *** here was a typo before, it said 5-3 ***
via the url (replace YOURHOST with the name:port of you host) http://YOURHOST/acs-admin/install/install?package_type=apm_application&repository_url=http%3a%2f%2fopenacs.org%2frepository%2f5-2%2f
If you are adventuresome, you might replace 5-2 by 5-4 in the URL above to see the packages from head. This is NOT recommended.
The tested packages for the 5.3.* kernel will be released with dotlrn 2.3.0 which is currently in alpha 2 state. The release is a matter of weeks.
Your quote... You can get the packages from the 5.2 channel (see http://openacs.org/repository/5-3/) so 5.2 is actualy 5.3!!! This indicates the whole version process seems to be messed up. How difficult can it be to provide a simple install of the latest stable installation, I really don't get it.
Why can't we have a simple seperation:
1. STABLE, WORKS OUT OF THE BOX, NEWBIE PROOF, NO DEVELOPERS NEEDED USING THE LATEST STABLE PACKAGES AUTO INSTALLED IN ONE COMMAND!
I have no intention to venture into no mans land, HEAD or whatever fancy geek worlds exist I just like to use OACS promote it and set up a business centered around the toolkit. Constant system crashes don't really help .
2. ADVENTURE LAND/GEEKWORLD... please make this a seperate world, not linked in the default oacs user environment and make sure end users access is a simple option that will not mess up a working environment. I really like all the projects folks are working on like e-commerce, accounting contacts and all the things many people are looking forward to be able to use yesterday, but please keep them seperated from the latest stable release!!
That will solve major headaches and confusion. Until today I have no idea what HEAD is where I can find it and as I am not a geek I a don't care, yet whenever the system crashes It's because I have been using HEAD without realizing it.
Will this version provide me with down loadable packages? http://openacs.org/projects/openacs/download/one-revision?revision_id=583060
All I need is XOwiki,photodb, project manager, blog, dot folio, faq events, room reservations,logger, bug tracker and DotLRN. I realy don't understand why it is impossible to install this out of the box!
3. Why not set up a failsafe test mechanism prior to releasing a new version maned by newbies (people like me) to make sure a dummy can install the latest release?
So if its also the case that there are no packages available for 5.3.0 are we saying that 5.2.3 is still considered the stable release?
The release manager of .LRN makes sure all packages that belong to .LRN are a basis of the .LRN release tarball. You might ask him (for 2.3 that is Don) that he tags all .LRN packages as compatible for a certain released version of OpenACS once the release is out.
All other packages have to have a maintainer or someone who cares to say "Yes, this package works on e.g. oacs-5-3". I know for a fact that the head version of xowiki and xotcl-core as an example work with OpenACS 5.3, so they could be tagged with the compatability mark, the moment Gustaf releases them. But this is up to him to decide.
What people in the community can do though to help this process is to download a package from CVS (either the 5-3 branch or HEAD) and see if this package works in their stock installation. This can then be reported back (e.g. in the forums). Then you (preferably) or some other member can download the version, tag it as compatible and therefore release it in the list of packages. Note though if we are doing this: We raise expectations that the package really works, so the person reporting "This works" has a moral obligation to be sure about it . Additionally the person tagging should make sure the maturity level is somewhat up to date.
I have to admit my guilt on not releasing the packages I am working on due to the fact that all of them require a version of acs-* package that resides in HEAD (in my case namely acs-mail-lite and acs-tcl).
I really hope we'll find a simple way to install OACS out of the box very soon.
I have been playing with OACS tor 5 years now and the net result is I can no longer activate a fresh installation, really folks this can't be your objective!
Why not concentrate on a simple installation procedure before venturing into second Life?
Gustaf made a typo that's all. The 5.2 channel is at http://openacs.org/repository/5-2/
On thing you need to understand is that we are a volunteer community. Please feel free to orgainze whatever resources you have to improving the toolkit. Making it easier to use a great goal.
The main reason you can't find dotlrn compatible with openacs 5.3 is that dotlrn is a collection of packages that are tested and released together. The release process for dotlrn 2.3 is almost complete.
Using more exclamation points or capital letters does not make the job of managing the toolkit any easier.
You can download dotlrn 2.3 alpha now, and try it out, it works and testing helps the community greatly. http://openacs.org/projects/dotlrn/download/one-revision?revision_id=937416
This is the "failsafe" test mechanism prior to release. Interested parties download the alpha or beta release, and try it out. They report issues and help fix bugs before the release.
Or you can wait for the official release.
If after the release you find some aspects of OpenACS or .LRN that are not up to your standards, and you don't feel you can fix it yourself, you can always find a volunteer to work with you, or hire someone to fix what you need.
It was not my decision to proceed this way. As it stands, the 5.3.0 release is a OpenACS Core version only, and therefore mostly useful for developers. This was the decision of the OCT due to the constraints of the given time and personnel resources. You have to understand that the release process is a time consuming and not very thrilling process. Volunteers can certainly help here (e.g. right now with the dotlrn alpha releases).
Dave, is right, I made a typo in one of the links (i edited my post to reduce the confusion; was it really so hard to guess that the 5.2 packages are under repository/5-2/ when the 5.3 packages are under repository/5-3/ and the leading edge packages are under repository/5-4/??). Sorry for the confusion.
I know, that the xowiki/xotcl-core packages work with 5.3, and i could release it that way. However, xowiki/xotcl-core packages have dependencies for other packages, which are not released yet. So, if i mark these packages as 5-3-compat, people will complain that they can't install it.
Steve, the packages in repository/5-2/ are the latest 'released' packages, these work with OpenACS Core 5.2.3. So, if you get the kernel (OpenACS Core 5.2.3), and you do a upgrade from repository, you should get a working version. We should be more clear in distinguishing between "OpenACS Core" and the "OpenACS Application Packages".
Hope, this helps.
My comment wasn't intended as a criticism - I appreciate how much volunteer time people commit in maintaining the site and releases.
If you tour the site from a newbies perspective it can be a bit confusing at times. When we get a new visitor to the site who might be interested in downloading OACS to try it out, I think it should be clear what it is that they should download to achieve this. As I understand it that would be 5.2.3 at the moment if, as is likely, they want to try anything other than the core. Which means that the Home page is correct but other areas could do with some clarification.
The release manager of .LRN makes sure all packages that belong to .LRN are a basis of the .LRN release tarball. You might ask him (for 2.3 that is Don) that he tags all .LRN packages as compatible for a certain released version of OpenACS once the release is out.Indeed, they'll be tagged as oacs-5-3-compat when I release .LRN 2.3.0 final.
The decision to only release acs-core as a monolithic entity rather than continue to release a wide suite of packages at once (other than .LRN) wasn't made so much because of limited resources, but rather to give package developers more flexibility.
So, for instance, under the "old scheme" Gustaf's xowiki package wouldn't "officially" become upgraded except when acs-core was released.
Now, Gustaf is free to make new releases of xowiki whenever he wants. It is his responsibility, though, not mine as the OpenACS release manager, to make certain that compatibility and maturity tags are properly maintained in CVS.
Likewise for other packages. Those released officially with .LRN are maintained by the .LRN developer community (though we don't do as good a job maintaining version and tag info as we should, I admit - we're trying to improve this).
Other packages - malte's business-oriented stuff, the project manager stuff worked on by a few other people - well, those folks have to maintain their own version and compatibility tag information themselves. As they do, the packages will be made available for download in the repository (assuming that code works reliably :)
We've got a lot to do to improve this stuff. As Dave mentions, volunteer help is much more useful than "bangs" (the "!" char) or capital letters :)
Like Steve I have no intention to disrespect the great work you folks are doing, and I fully understand the limitations on resources. When I published the message I was a little disappointed that all of a sudden all my work was gone after using 5.3 since the release (downloaded 264797 times). We're now installing 5.2. I hope I'll be back in business this weekend.
Thanks for explaining the process although it's still confusing .