could you please lead me to a proof of your statement? if I want not to use UMIL, I do that.. firstly. so?Unknown Bliss wrote:When 3.1 is released your /install/ directory won't exist as AutoMOD will have UMIL built into its wizard install meaning there will be no /install/ to run.
[RFC]Remove Install file
- 3Di
- Registered User
- Posts: 951
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:50 pm
- Location: Milano 🇮🇹 Frankfurt 🇩🇪
- Contact:
Re: [RFC]Remove Install file
Free support for our extensions also provided here: phpBB Studio
Looking for a specific feature or alternative option? We will rock you!
Please PM me only to request paid works. Thx. Want to compensate me for my interest? Donate
My development's activity º PhpStorm's proud user º Extensions, Scripts, MOD porting, Update/Upgrades
Looking for a specific feature or alternative option? We will rock you!
Please PM me only to request paid works. Thx. Want to compensate me for my interest? Donate
My development's activity º PhpStorm's proud user º Extensions, Scripts, MOD porting, Update/Upgrades
Re: [RFC]Remove Install file
Ok this is now a sea of contradictions. All of the above are incorrect except the first post which is:
Which is still incorrect as it says sub-projects, which is incorrect meaning this post contradicts itself.Unknown Bliss wrote:I like that idea except some mods and phpbb sub-projects put the install at /install/ as it also disables the board.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
Re: [RFC]Remove Install file
What about the fact that some mods has install files to make all their DB changes and such? The gallery mod for phpbb is one perfect example
Re: [RFC]Remove Install file
mods that require db changes will still work, UMIL will be built in to automod, so things like the phpBB gallery mod would work, of course they'd probably have to make a new version for it to work with phpbb 3.1
Anyway, I also agree to delete the install folder when its installed, or build install into the index.php that only works if the config.php doesnt exist or is empty.
Anyway, I also agree to delete the install folder when its installed, or build install into the index.php that only works if the config.php doesnt exist or is empty.
-Jonah
Re: [RFC]Remove Install file
No, UMIL is not included in AutoMOD however the UMIL folder is included in the phpBB Package unless this changes in 3.2.xjsbean wrote:mods that require db changes will still work, UMIL will be built in to automod, so things like the phpBB gallery mod would work, of course they'd probably have to make a new version for it to work with phpbb 3.1
Anyway, I also agree to delete the install folder when its installed, or build install into the index.php that only works if the config.php doesnt exist or is empty.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
- DavidIQ
- Customisations Team Leader
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
Re: [RFC]Remove Install file
The need for UMIL will, hopefully, go away by 3.2 when all of wha UMIL does will be possible through core instead.
Re: [RFC]Remove Install file
Not really what I meant, what I meant was UMIL and Automod will be included 3.1, correct me if I'm wrong but thats what i've picked up to learn from the rfcs?Unknown Bliss wrote:No, UMIL is not included in AutoMOD however the UMIL folder is included in the phpBB Package unless this changes in 3.2.xjsbean wrote:mods that require db changes will still work, UMIL will be built in to automod, so things like the phpBB gallery mod would work, of course they'd probably have to make a new version for it to work with phpbb 3.1
Anyway, I also agree to delete the install folder when its installed, or build install into the index.php that only works if the config.php doesnt exist or is empty.
-Jonah
Re: [RFC]Remove Install file
Let's keep this topic on the topic of removing install directory after (successful?) installation.
I think it's a good idea for those environments where it is possible. Of course, in secure environments where code is not allowed to modify itself no such silliness should be attempted.
The "install lock" idea I'm not a big fan of. First of all there is the practical problem of someone emptying their cache and breaking their board. Second, the installer should physically not exist after installation and the "install lock" does not achieve this.
I think it's a good idea for those environments where it is possible. Of course, in secure environments where code is not allowed to modify itself no such silliness should be attempted.
The "install lock" idea I'm not a big fan of. First of all there is the practical problem of someone emptying their cache and breaking their board. Second, the installer should physically not exist after installation and the "install lock" does not achieve this.