Salam
When using SVN revision (now: 21464), the installer will simply break if you use mysql newer than 4.0.** which is 4.1 or 5.. it will give that error about blob/text cannot have default stuff and so... I thought that it was on windows only but I tried it on ubuntu fawn(mysql5 php5) and on dreamhost account (php5 mysql5) and on windows i tried many things :) tried php6 (installer didn't understand) php5 and mysql 4.0.26 (the only one worked) mysql 4.1. (didn't) mysql 5.2 flacon (didn't work)... note that it only don't work on svn, now i installed 1.9.3 and it was installed without problems...I guess that there is something wrong got into the sql stuff, so perhaps you can take a look...
I won't bugzilla it as I already did once and it worked for rob ;)
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
Salam
When using SVN revision (now: 21464), the installer will simply break if you use mysql newer than 4.0.** which is 4.1 or 5.. it will give that error about blob/text cannot have default stuff and so... I thought that it was on windows only but I tried it on ubuntu fawn(mysql5 php5) and on dreamhost account (php5 mysql5) and on windows i tried many things :) tried php6 (installer didn't understand) php5 and mysql 4.0.26 (the only one worked) mysql 4.1. (didn't) mysql 5.2 flacon (didn't work)... note that it only don't work on svn, now i installed 1.9.3 and it was installed without problems...I guess that there is something wrong got into the sql stuff, so perhaps you can take a look...
I won't bugzilla it as I already did once and it worked for rob ;)
The installer seems to be broken in several ways. I'm working on a fix. It would help if you could give me the exact details of your error, so that I can make sure I have fixed it. A bugzilla reference would be fine.
-- Tim Starling
The installer seems to be broken in several ways. I'm working on a fix. It would help if you could give me the exact details of your error, so that I can make sure I have fixed it. A bugzilla reference would be fine.
That was the bug http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9552 , the files aren't available anymore (sorry)...
I tried all schemes but nothing changed...I tried to remove the default values but I thoink I messed it more :(
I don't know, but IMHO I think it should work without me (or anyone) editing sql to make it work..
Another different thing.. in 1.9.3, the file "inlcudes/AutoLoader.php" comes with the name of the file "ip.php" in uppercase resulting in crashing mw.. it should be "ip.php" instead of "IP.php" or you rename the file :)
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
The installer seems to be broken in several ways. I'm working on a fix. It would help if you could give me the exact details of your error, so that I can make sure I have fixed it. A bugzilla reference would be fine.
That was the bug http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9552 , the files aren't available anymore (sorry)...
I tried all schemes but nothing changed...I tried to remove the default values but I thoink I messed it more :(
I don't know, but IMHO I think it should work without me (or anyone) editing sql to make it work..
Another different thing.. in 1.9.3, the file "inlcudes/AutoLoader.php" comes with the name of the file "ip.php" in uppercase resulting in crashing mw.. it should be "ip.php" instead of "IP.php" or you rename the file :)
I've fixed some bugs and tested it on MySQL 5.1 in strict mode, it seems to work. Update and tell us if you have any problems.
-- Tim Starling
Another different thing.. in 1.9.3, the file "inlcudes/AutoLoader.php" comes with the name of the file "ip.php" in uppercase resulting in crashing mw.. it should be "ip.php" instead of "IP.php" or you rename the file :)
Barring any PHP bugs, I would expect this to work out-of-the-box, at least in 1.10.x : ----------------------------------------- root@bling:/var/www/hosts/mediawiki/wiki# ls -al includes/IP* -rw-r--r-- 1 www-data www-data 15324 2007-04-11 16:22 includes/IP.php root@bling:/var/www/hosts/mediawiki/wiki# grep -in "IP.php" includes/AutoLoader.php 100: 'IP' => 'includes/IP.php', 170: 'IPBlockForm' => 'includes/SpecialBlockip.php', root@bling:/var/www/hosts/mediawiki/wiki# -----------------------------------------
(i.e. the "IP" in IP.php is in uppercase, both for the file's name in the filesystem, and for the path used in the autoloader).
If it doesn't work when 1.10 is released, make sure you have the latest stable version of PHP installed. If it still doesn't work, then please file a bug report in bugzilla, with the version of PHP used, type and version number of OS, and maybe type and version number of web server.
-- All the best, Nick.
Nick Jenkins wrote:
Another different thing.. in 1.9.3, the file "inlcudes/AutoLoader.php" comes with the name of the file "ip.php" in uppercase resulting in crashing mw.. it should be "ip.php" instead of "IP.php" or you rename the file :)
Barring any PHP bugs, I would expect this to work out-of-the-box, at least in 1.10.x :
root@bling:/var/www/hosts/mediawiki/wiki# ls -al includes/IP* -rw-r--r-- 1 www-data www-data 15324 2007-04-11 16:22 includes/IP.php root@bling:/var/www/hosts/mediawiki/wiki# grep -in "IP.php" includes/AutoLoader.php 100: 'IP' => 'includes/IP.php', 170: 'IPBlockForm' => 'includes/SpecialBlockip.php', root@bling:/var/www/hosts/mediawiki/wiki#
(i.e. the "IP" in IP.php is in uppercase, both for the file's name in the filesystem, and for the path used in the autoloader).
If it doesn't work when 1.10 is released, make sure you have the latest stable version of PHP installed. If it still doesn't work, then please file a bug report in bugzilla, with the version of PHP used, type and version number of OS, and maybe type and version number of web server.
-- All the best, Nick.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Its fixed in the subversion, Thanks :)
A side note: wouldn't it be more convenient if it can go on and don't crash if it couldn't load/find the file (I mean generally, any file)? or the functioning of mw strictly depends on every single file to run? a safe mode or something...
On 23/04/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
A side note: wouldn't it be more convenient if it can go on and don't crash if it couldn't load/find the file (I mean generally, any file)? or the functioning of mw strictly depends on every single file to run? a safe mode or something...
MediaWiki contains a large and complicated application framework, and as such it is not safe to "just go on" if part of it is unable to be loaded. There isn't a "safe mode" or a "reduced functionality mode"; if a file is missing, then it's missing, and the user needs to correct it.
Rob Church
Rob Church wrote:
On 23/04/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
A side note: wouldn't it be more convenient if it can go on and don't crash if it couldn't load/find the file (I mean generally, any file)? or the functioning of mw strictly depends on every single file to run? a safe mode or something...
MediaWiki contains a large and complicated application framework, and as such it is not safe to "just go on" if part of it is unable to be loaded. There isn't a "safe mode" or a "reduced functionality mode"; if a file is missing, then it's missing, and the user needs to correct it.
That is what I call strict...
Rob Church
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
A side note: wouldn't it be more convenient if it can go on and don't crash if it couldn't load/find the file (I mean generally, any file)? or the functioning of mw strictly depends on every single file to run? a safe mode or something...
But don't you want to know if something doesn't work? Your options are either it seems to work, but then just fails when the IP-related functions are called; or it can fail upfront, and you know that there's a problem. The second is commonly known as failfast, and is thought by some to be a useful property - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-fast (contrast with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault-tolerant_system )
Personally, I generally prefer fail-fast (I'm only talking here about non-life-critical software that I'm responsible for maintaining). If something I'm responsible for is going to fail, then I'd much rather find out as early as possible, than at 3 AM when an irate customer/user who has a deadline in 5 hours runs into a showstopper bug, and demands that it be fixed right now :-)
Equally, if a plane a going to fail, I'd much rather it be unable to take off, than fall out of the sky in mid-flight ... but on the other hand, once a plane is airborne, then I want N+2 redundancy on all critical systems; and once a server has been deployed in the data centre, I want RAID to protect against single hard disk failures.
So I suppose it really depends on : * how critical the system is (if not very important, then the effort expended in making it fault-tolerant may be more usefully directed elsewhere) * whether the thing has already been deployed (in which case redundancy is good), or whether it's being tested / developed / set up / configured (in which case failfast is good).
-- All the best, Nick.
Nick Jenkins wrote:
A side note: wouldn't it be more convenient if it can go on and don't crash if it couldn't load/find the file (I mean generally, any file)? or the functioning of mw strictly depends on every single file to run? a safe mode or something...
But don't you want to know if something doesn't work?
I think it would be possible to add warnings or some log...
Your options are either it seems to work, but then just fails when the IP-related functions are called; or it can fail upfront, and you know that there's a problem. The second is commonly known as failfast, and is thought by some to be a useful property - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-fast (contrast with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault-tolerant_system )
Personally, I generally prefer fail-fast (I'm only talking here about non-life-critical software that I'm responsible for maintaining). If something I'm responsible for is going to fail, then I'd much rather find out as early as possible, than at 3 AM when an irate customer/user who has a deadline in 5 hours runs into a showstopper bug, and demands that it be fixed right now :-)
Equally, if a plane a going to fail, I'd much rather it be unable to take off, than fall out of the sky in mid-flight ... but on the other hand, once a plane is airborne, then I want N+2 redundancy on all critical systems; and once a server has been deployed in the data centre, I want RAID to protect against single hard disk failures.
So I suppose it really depends on :
- how critical the system is (if not very important, then the effort expended in making it fault-tolerant may be more usefully directed elsewhere)
- whether the thing has already been deployed (in which case redundancy is good), or whether it's being tested / developed / set up / configured (in which case failfast is good).
-- All the best, Nick.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Really nice thinking! :) ofc I won't appreciate
Fault-tolerant_system *on land* but if you are on the air, and some engine goes nuts, would you appreciate Fail-fast or die at once? say, one engine goes out, all the engines shutdown...I would prefer the faulty tolerant in this case, hence i want to reach alive ;)
But this is just an analogy, may be it isn't right to apply it to computer stuff....
Anyway...
Fault-tolerant_system *on land* but if you are on the air, and some engine goes nuts, would you appreciate Fail-fast or die at once? say, one engine goes out, all the engines shutdown...I would prefer the faulty tolerant in this case, hence i want to reach alive ;)
But this is just an analogy, may be it isn't right to apply it to computer stuff....
If MW can't find one of it's files, it's just about taking off, so you're not really in the air already...
-- chris ------ Der Inhalt dieses E-Mails ist streng vertraulich und m�glicherweise gesetzlich besonders gesch�tzt. Dieses E-Mail ist nur f�r den Adressaten bestimmt. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empf�nger sind, ist es Ihnen nicht gestattet und stellt m�glicherweise einen Gesetzesverstoss dar, dieses E-mail zu kopieren, zu verbreiten oder anderweitig zu verwenden. In diesem Fall sollten Sie uns so schnell wie m�glich benachrichtigen und dieses E-mail l�schen.
Le contenu de ce courriel est strictement confidentiel et probablement l�galement prot�g�. Il n'est adress� qu'aux destinataires mentionn�s. Si vous n'en faites pas partie, vous n'avez pas l'autorisation de le copier, ni de le diffuser, ni m�me de le destiner � un autre usage - ce qui dans chaque cas peut en effet constituer une infraction � la loi. Dans ce cas, vous devriez nous en informer imm�diatement et effacer ce courriel..
Il contenuto del presente messaggio elettronico � da considerare di massima riservatezza e possibilmente � protetto in modo particolare dalla legge. La presente e-mail � riservata alla sola attenzione della persona destinataria. Se lei non � la persona che avrebbe dovuto ricevere la e-mail, non le � permesso e possibilmente rappresenta una violazione della legge, copiare la presente e-mail, diffonderla o utilizzarla in qualsiasi altro modo. In questo caso lei dovrebbe informarci al pi� presto possibile e cancellare la presente e-mail.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org