$wgDBtransactions gets set to true if using InnoDB tables. Is there
an advantage to using InnoDB tables?
The disadvantage is that with MySQL there is a file, ibdata1, that
seems to grow endlessly if InnoDB tables are used. See
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=1341
We're wondering if we should just convert everything to MyISAM. Any
thoughts?
=====================================
Jim Hu
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biochemistry and Biophysics
2128 TAMU
Texas A&M Univ.
College Station, TX 77843-2128
979-862-4054
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I've created some custom namespaced on one of my wikis, Botwiki
(previously known as pywikipedia).
I've put these lines in my LocalSettings.php file:
- ---
#Custom namespaces
$wgExtraNamespaces =
array(100 => "Manual",
101 => "Manual talk",
102 => "Python",
103 => "Python talk",
104 => "Php",
105 => "Php talk",
106 => "Perl",
107 => "Perl talk",
108 => "AWB",
109 => "AWB talk",
110 => "IRC",
111 => "IRC talk",
112 => "Other",
113 => "Other talk"
);
$wgContentNamespaces[] = 100;
$wgContentNamespaces[] = 102;
$wgContentNamespaces[] = 104;
$wgContentNamespaces[] = 106;
$wgContentNamespaces[] = 108;
$wgContentNamespaces[] = 110;
$wgContentNamespaces[] = 112;
- ---
However, I have a big problem: when I go to a page in one of these new
namespaces (not the discussion, the main ones), for example
http://botwiki.sno.cc/wiki/Perl:Copyright_Violation_Bot , I found the
red link to the discussion page. It's right, as there is no discussion
page for that article. But if you click on it, it brings you to
http://botwiki.sno.cc/w/index.php?title=Perl_talk:Copyright_Violation_Bot&a…
correct, of course. But have a look of the article and discussion tabs:
they are both red! The first, "article", leads to
http://botwiki.sno.cc/w/index.php?title=Perl_talk:Copyright_Violation_Bot&a…
when it should lead to
http://botwiki.sno.cc/wiki/Perl:Copyright_Violation_Bot and the second,
"discussion", leads to
http://botwiki.sno.cc/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perl_talk:Copyright_Violation_…
, when it should lead to
http://botwiki.sno.cc/w/index.php?title=Perl_talk:Copyright_Violation_Bot&a…
.
It's the first time I deal with custom namespaces :-( but I have some
ideas of what it can be. Can the problem be with the
$wgContentNamespaces settings? So it detects everything as ns0? (don't
think so).
Or can it be the fact that I haven't used an underscore in the
$wgExtraNamespaces definition?
Snowolf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGWhk7sdafW5NQMtERAuX+AKDQ7QLNjXv9cu+ZbSLXidMzgi/vNgCaA7VT
+VTgR3iI/BI7FVDqcyRZVJ0=
=a4yP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi there,
I am using Lucene-Search 2.1/MWSearch for my MediaWiki 1.15.1.
It's working fine, but it can't search any Japanese characters.
I have tried (language,ja) in the lsearch-global.conf file, but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
Any idea would be appreciated,
Ross
__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Hi,
until I made an upgrade from 1.15.1 (applied the 15.2,3 and 4 patches) I
was happily editing my wiki pages with gnu emacs via ee.pl
and a bookmarklet that goes:
javascript:location=location+'?action=edit&externaledit=true';
(http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:External_editors)
Now, external editing is broken I and I suspect that this is related to
(bug 23076)
Fixed login CSRF vulnerability. Logins now require a token to be
submitted along with the user name and password. Patch by Roan Kattouw.
Any ideas on what I could/should do to get TRUE external editing back ?
I don't mind installing stuff. I am not much of a programmer/sysadmin,
but I can read :)
I don't want to use something like "It's all text" since it's not
practical to edit several wiki pages at the same time and having
to keep several browser tabs open just for saving. (I do this at home
on a windows box and it's a pain).
- thanx for any help / insight ! - Daniel
PS: Of course I am not sure about the cause, but in my case
identification of the problem (upgrading) is really simple. I got two
wikis on the same machine:
The 1.15.4 one (http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/) is broken and the
1.15.1 one (http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/fr/) works just fine.
Greetings,
I'm new to this list. We keep the user and internal documentation for
our software product in Mediawiki. It works very well, thanks. What we
would like to do is take a snapshot of the user doc tree rooted at a
specific Mediawiki page. We would like the snapshot to be a complete
self-contained set of HTML pages we could ship with the product --
possibly with a Mediawiki reading tool if necessary. The user could
point his browser at the snapshot and get the same pages we see. I
realize that there could be many difficulties creating such a snapshot,
but I'm hoping the tool would have constraining options (e.g., specify a
list of URL prefixes - only pages that have one of these prefixes are
included in the snapshot, others are listed/noted as warnings by the
tool).
Is there an existing tool or script that does this?
Thanks.
-Sam
I'm wanting to make an article link, much like Wikipedia makes to its
own articles, but instead of using [[whatever]] like would be done to
an article on the same site, I want to make it be a link over to the
real en.wikipedia.org site, for the article there. The <nowiki> tags
with HTML to do it just escape the HTML out to be displayed (e.g. its
nowiki and nohtml combined).
Example. I have the term Postfix in a local wiki page. If I wrote a
page about Postfix on my local wiki, I could just use [[Postfix]] and
be done. But I don't want to have to load all the templates from
Wikipedia, or maintain that article here. I just want to link over to
Wikipedia and let people read it there.
--
sHiFt HaPpEnS!
Hi
I am a total n00b to mediaWiki. I am writing a new extension to
dynamically generate an SVG file. I have written the extension and
copied the files in the right places.
But mediaWiki does not seem to pick up my extension. DO I need to
restart the apache server or something like that in order to make sure
my change in LocalSettings.php is picked up.
What I don't understand (and I do not think is documented very well )
is how does mediawiki know that the file LocalSettings.php has changed
and needs to be re-loaded.
Alok
I have attempted to export the Infobox template from Wikipedia by
going to the Special:Export page, typing in Template:Infobox in the
box labeled "Add from this category", and ticking all three boxes at
the bottom (ie. Include only the current revision, not the full
history; Include templates; Save as file
The problem is that I am not being prompted to save the XML file.
Am I doing something wrong? I tried using IE8 and Firefox in case it
was a browser issue, but the results are the same.
How do I get this export to work?
Thanks,
Sandy
Cross-posted to
<http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/07/mediawiki-version-statistics/>
Some kind people at Qualys have surveyed versions of open source web
apps present on the web, including MediaWiki. Here is the relevant
page from their presentation:
http://wimg.co.uk/3jK.png
For the original see:
https://community.qualys.com/docs/DOC-1401
And the press release:
<http://www.qualys.com/company/newsroom/newsreleases/usa/view/2010-07-28/>
They make the point that 95% of MediaWiki installations have a
"serious vulnerability", whereas only 4% of WordPress installations
do. While WordPress's web-based upgrade utility certainly has a
positive impact on security, I feel I should point out that what
WordPress counts as a serious vulnerability does not align with
MediaWiki's definition of the same term.
For instance, if a web-based user could execute arbitrary PHP code on
the server, compromising all data and user accounts, we would count
that as the most serious sort of vulnerability, and we would do an
immediate release to fix it. We're proud of the fact that we haven't
had any such vulnerability in a stable release since 1.5.3 (December
2005).
However in WordPress, they count this as a feature, and all
administrators can do it. Similarly, WordPress avoids the difficult
problem of sanitising HTML and CSS while preserving a rich feature set
by simply allowing all authors to post raw HTML.
If you are running MediaWiki in a CMS-like mode, with whitelist edit
and account creation restricted, then I think it's fair to say that in
terms of security, you're better off with MediaWiki 1.14.1 or later
than you are with the latest version of WordPress.
However, the statistics presented by Qualys show that an alarming
number of people are running versions of MediaWiki older than 1.14.1,
which was the most recent fix for an XSS vulnerability exploitable
without special privileges. There is certainly room for us to do better.
We have a new installer project in development, which we hope to
release in 1.17. It includes a feature which encourages users to sign
up for our release announcements mailing list. But maybe we need to do
more. Should we take a leaf from WordPress's book, and nag
administrators with a prominent notice when they are not using the
latest version? Such a feature would require MediaWiki to "dial home",
which is controversial in our developer community.
-- Tim Starling
Here's the basic information about my install:
MediaWiki 1.12.0
PHP 5
Database MySQL
What I'm looking to do is to allow any user with edit permissions to be
able to Protect a page so that only Sysops are able to edit / unprotect
it. To do this I turned on the Protect tab with the following code in
the LocalSettings.php file:
# Only allow users and sysops to protect a page
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['protect'] = false;
$wgGroupPermissions['user']['protect'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['protect'] = true;
The Protect tab does show up now, and you can protect a page, but when
ANYONE with edit privileges goes to edit they are able to do so
regardless of unprotecting the page or being a sysop. When editing, it
does show the following message, but lets you edit and save anyways:
WARNING: This page has been locked so that only users with sysop
privileges can edit it.
Any thoughts?
