Good Post/Bad Post Mod

[IdanC]

assuming your installation process was successful, try installing on a clean install of SMF, and see if it works.

if all is ok, than the problem is with one of your other mods. try installing each until you find it.

[Alleks]

assuming your installation process was successful, try installing on a clean install of SMF, and see if it works.

if all is ok, than the problem is with one of your other mods. try installing each until you find it.

Actually this happened after I upgraded forum from 1.1.11 to 2.0 RC3 by upgrading it so mods were there.. some old files from 1.1.11 were left on server and maybe they are conflicting with new ones...

I will try to have absolutely fresh install of SMF 2.0 RC3 and will see if this would work for me.. because on 1.1.11 version GPBP scripts worked well on this hosting and server.

[Alleks]

For a test I installed completely new 2.3 version with no mods and tried to install there GPBP all pre-tests were succesfull and after installation I was notified that everything was installed.. but when I started to browse folders I did not find any signs of GPBP existence on my forum. Looks like installation was succesful on paper but no scripts were extracted to scripts folder as well no language files were touched.. All files were with 777 chmoded permission, temp folder was created in Packages folder but this did not help..

Now I have returned to backup version with somehow installed GP BP but there I am still getting script error:

Message: Object required
Line: 27
Char: 2
Code: 0
URI: hxxp:www.betonbasket.ru/forum/Themes/default/scripts/gpbp.js?2_0 [nonactive]

[Alleks]

problem solved. I used upgrade files manually by uploading them into root folder and running them one by one. Not sure which one fixed this but it did. Hope my solo writing may help if someone will experience similar problem.

[GreySkull-1]

Installed fine but my default theme is "Core" and this seems to have installed to "Curve".

Is there an easy way to have this mod also show in "Core"?

Thanks

(SMF 2.0 RC3)

[GreySkull-1]

Hello?

Anyone out there?

[IdanC]

Hello?

Anyone out there?

it's just a very basic question, i guess people assumed you did some minimal research and found the answer yourself.

Is there an easy way to have this mod also show in "Core"?

easy or hard, the only way i know is looking at the Manual Install Instructions, and follow them with the appropriate accommodation for your specific theme.

[ilushkin]

Please note the bug with this mode and SMF ver 2 RC3.

http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=373600.0

[GreySkull-1]

it's just a very basic question, i guess people assumed you did some minimal research and found the answer yourself.

I did do minimal research and didn't find the answer.

My forum use to be on a PHPbb software and I have to say although i like SMF much better, the support seems to be thrown here and there, hidden under this, buried under that.
Not to mention that if one does delve into the mods, its a hit and miss as to whether it will work or not and a very good chance the creator of the mod has moved on and no longer supports it.

So, when a fellow user comes on and request help it would be nice to just get a simple, straight forward, mature response instead of expecting the person to go on a major time consuming hunt.

Thanks for the reply.

Guess I'll just steer clear of mods that can't be placed on other themes with the ease of a simple install.

[IdanC]

i know how you feel, the community was'nt always like this. but recently, due to some sort of dispute over the rights that was handled poorly, most of the developers walked out of the project.

i wouldn't avoid manually editing the theme, it's just basic copy-paste. actually, i didn't even know php before i started working on my forum.

[Arantor]

Even putting aside the dispute in January, you will have exactly the same problem with mods being supported by their authors here as you will over on phpBB.

The (vast) majority of mods are contributed by their authors because they wrote them for their own sites, and when they're done with it they aren't beholden to support it evermore. They contributed it when it was done because they thought people could make use of it.

That said, a lot of mod authors are waiting for 2.0 final to emerge before doing anything around modding.

[TurtleKicker]

The (vast) majority of mods are contributed by their authors because they wrote them for their own sites, and when they're done with it they aren't beholden to support it evermore. They contributed it when it was done because they thought people could make use of it.

Which is all right and noble, except that unless that contribution also comes with a statement "if I ever disappear and stop supporting this mod, I give permission for someone else to take it over" then it's not a gift, it's a liability for anyone who invests in using it. They build their site around a mod, start depending on it, then the mod author vanishes and the mod starts breaking with new updates to SMF. But SMF won't let anyone else pick up the mod because the author didn't explicitly allow it.

A "gift" perhaps, but a poisoned gift without ensured longevity via a rights release.

[Arantor]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Many mods are, for this very reason, a liability unless you're willing to learn (or are already fluent in) PHP and ready to pull your sleeves up to fix issues yourself.

This is only one reason we ensured SimpleDesk has a F/OSS licence in case we all get hit by a bus or something.

[Chon_Lee]

When filtering results, when there is more than one page, when clicking the page 2 link of the filtered results, the filter does not hold and the mod will then then displays page 2 of the unfiltered list.

[IdanC]

good points Arantor and sremic, is it too late to implement them? was'nt the January fiasco a wake up call that a deep change is needed?

and the lack of news and the overall glum feeling around the community (except you Arantor  - you're like an Energizer Bunny around the forums  ) got me thinking that SMF2.0 will not see the light of day, was i wrong?

p.s.
i love smf, and even if this is the end, it was one hell of a ride.

[Arantor]

Well, SMF 2.0 is being actively moved forward with bug fixes being applied quite a lot recently (Norv has made a LOT of progress from what I can see), including some of the ones I helped solve, which is good.

"Is it too late to change the licence on a mod?"

That's down to the author. They need to establish what licence it's under and whether others can take it over.

SMF is far from dead! An individual mod may not continue to be developed but SMF itself is growing strong again with multiple people returning to the team.

[TurtleKicker]

good points Arantor and sremic, is it too late to implement them? was'nt the January fiasco a wake up call that a deep change is needed?

Yes, but not much was done... basically people waited until the chaos calmed down, then those who remained just moved on and tried to pretend it didn't happen. Of course, without the needed changes a similar incident is at risk of happening again in the future, but this is not the thread for that discussion.

and the lack of news and the overall glum feeling around the community (except you Arantor  - you're like an Energizer Bunny around the forums  ) got me thinking that SMF2.0 will not see the light of day, was i wrong?

Perhaps. See here:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=377215.0

[Arantor]

That's actually part of the problem.

SMF can't change its licence without signoff from all contributors but a number of former contributors refuse to sign off on a licence change to anything else. It's complicated, messy and likely to result in more tears sometime in the future.

[GreySkull-1]

Did I open up a can of worms or what?

You people got me looking for another forum software! Not seriously... but thinking I may need to.

[Arantor]

You do get mostly the same problem on any environment with unsupported modifications. It's not quite so bad for phpBB and MyBB, by having GPL-compatible licences, it forces modifications to have a compatible licence, meaning that anyone can pick up and fork the modifications.

SMF doesn't have that deal; modifications are often not licenced meaning it's straight IP/copyright with an implication (note: it's IMPLIED, not EXPLICIT) to use a licence similar to SMF's own licence. Meaning that authors are within their rights to remove mods and bar further changes to them.

Thus mods that are unsupported are something of a liability unless someone else is willing to take them over and support them, which unfortunately doesn't happen. I'd point out that this is an issue for vBulletin "hacks" too.