In my case I'm upgrading the memcache module,though there's a README.txt but it seems not operable :
1. Install the memcached binaries on your server. See http://www.lullabot.com/articles/how_install_memcache_debian_etch
2. Install the PECL memcache extension for PHP. This must be version 2.2.1 or higher or you will experience errors.
3. Put your site into offline mode.
4. Download and install the memcache module.
5. If you have previously been running the memcache module, run update.php.
6. Apply the DRUPAL-5-x-cache-serialize.patch from the patches folder that
comes with the module. Version specific, so use DRUPAL-5-6-cache-serialize.patch
if you are running Drupal 5.6.
7. Start at least one instance of memcached on your server.
8. Edit settings.php to configure the servers, clusters and bins that memcache
is supposed to use.
9. Edit settings.php to include either memcache.inc or memcache.db.inc. For
example, $conf['cache_inc'] ='sites/all/modules/memcache/memcache.db.inc';
10. Bring your site back online.
Especially step4, does it mean just unpack the module and replace all stuff in original directory?
My current memcache version is 5.x-1.9 and there's 5.x-1.10 available,but I don't see it available at admin/logs/updates
Step 4 means that you remove the old module directory completely and only then unzip the new module code. You don't want any remnants of the old code.
Also note, that
Not all module developers think the same about dot releases: sometimes 1.2 and 1.3 are major rewrites or come with completely new features, themeable-functions, pages or APIs.
Not all upgrades are compatible with others. Sometimes you cannot update module B to 1.4, because of its dependency with A, A seems not compatible with 1.4 (yet). Drupal does not support dependencies on versions.
Major releases imply (but do not guarantee) incompatibility, or even complete rewrites: Upgrading from 5.x-1.4 to 5.x-2.1 might force major rewrites of custom code, including your theme.
Security updates often are dependent on earlier releases: 6.x-1.2 might introduce new features (that you do not want, or wish to ignore), 6.x-1.3, can be a security-release that requires (some of the) the changes in 6.x-1.2 to be available. You must then either fiddle around with patches, or go trough that feature release anyway.
Related
Using ASP.NET Core 1.0, is it best practice to check in the project.lock.json file into source control?
Short answer: No, project.lock.file should not be checked into source control - you should configure the version control system to ignore it (i.e. add it to .gitignore if you're using git).
Long answer: The project.lock.json contains a snapshot of project's whole dependency tree - not just packages listed in "dependencies" sections, but also all resolved dependencies of those dependencies, and so on. But it is not like ruby's Gemfile.lock. Unlike Gemfile.lock, project.lock.json doesn't tell dotnet restore which exact versions of packages should be restored - it simply gets overwritten. As such, it should be treated like a cache file and never be checked into source control.
If you check it into version control, then most probably on other machine:
dotnet will think that all packages are restored, but in fact some packages might be missing and the build will fail, without hinting the developer to run dotnet restore
project.lock.json will be overwritten during dotnet restore and in most cases will be different than the version stored in source control. So it will be modified in almost every commit
project.lock.json will cause conflicts during merge
Actually you do want to commit your project.lock.json in git sometimes.
Checking your project json
For the exact reasons that, it shows you the dependencies you have used. Say:
Me as a developer works on an application, i hate every time updating packages so i add a package dependency to nuget package X = 1.*
I restore package i get version 1.2.4
The package maker just made a very stupid mistake, he broke something while just trying to make a fix and release 1.2.5
Person 2 checks out (or even worse release build kicks in).
Person 2 restores and gets version 1.2.5
Person 2 runs your application and find the application is broken.
Person 2 starts debugging and thinks there must be a bug in the software.
At this step 7 Person 2 could have seen in git that his lock file was changed and a newer version of a library has been downloaded, Which has not been tested by any of the other developers!
Downsides
Downsides of checking in this file is you might get allot of merge conflicts on continues updates of packages.
Alternative solution
Use only hard version dependencies (this is quite hard though for nuget). And only manually update to newer version once in a while.
Downsides
This doesn't work if you build a library for other people to use, since you pin them to a certain version of your dependencies.
Dependencies of dependencies still get resolved automatically so if you don't specify them yourself you can't guarantee there version on dotnet restore
Conclusion
If you want to avoid 'Works on my machine' quotes and the hell of constantly manually updating to newer version: Checking the project.lock.json.
And also build a CI/Release build check to test if this file wasn't changed compared to git, before you release (If your software is very critical)!
If this is not a problem and also automatically updating (to a potentially broken package) is not a big problem, you might not want to commit your project.lock.json.
No, it is just a lock file, really you should never check it in when a lock file exists (except if the program who locked it wants to check it into source control, in that case, exclude your lock file!).
I am using Spring Source Tool Suite 2.8.1 to implement Spring applications.
I frequently get build errors because references are lost for no apparent reason. In Right-click project in Package Explorer->Properties->Java Build Path->Order and Export, I find projects sometimes are deselected. And often packages are gone in Right-click project in Package Explorer->Properties->Java Build Path->Deployment Assembly.
Having to reset these settings frequently is frustrating. Is there some way I can work around these problems?
I have tried to update STS to the latest version, but the upgrade process fails with incomprehensible error messages. I want to avoid a clean install because setting up the environment again would probably be a nightmare.
Now that I know this is a maven project and you are adding references yourself, this is making sense to me. STS 2.8.x was the last STS to ship with the legacy m2e (maven plugin for Eclipse). It did not recognize build path entries added manually (it likes to have complete control over the classpath). So, what is likely happening is that you are adding these classpath entries and then an update project operation gets kicked off automatically. This will have the effect of removing all of your extra classpath entries.
You are best off doing the following:
Updgrading STS
Or just upgrading your m2e component (you will have to first uninstall the old m2e, but this should be taken care of automatically from the discovery update page).
Or, just accept the fact that you can't manually change your classpath with the legacy m2e.
I developed a website in wordpress and used several plugins. One of the plugin was http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/background-manager/
Every thing was working fine on my machine. But as i get uploaded it to client server. the whole site stuck due to lower version of PHP. This plugin requires PHP 5.3 and on server we have PHP 5.2. Since its a shared server, we can't upgrade its PHP.
Then i look into the code of this plugin it was using PHP 5.3 feature namespaces. Is there any way to downgrade this plugin that it will work with PHP 5.2?
This is a really tricky problem, and of course, it's really, really bad practice to use old code for plugins as they may have fixed security vulnerabilities or other serious problems. It would be better for you to move the site to a server with more up to date PHP.
Having given that important warning, you can, however, browse to the tags directory in the plugin repository and extract the files you want for the previous version. Plugin history is public and always maintained.
For instance, for the plugin you mentioned, you can visit the SVN part of the plugin repository at:
http://plugins.svn.wordpress.org/background-manager/
You'll find the previous versions there under the "tags" folder, named after their versions.
I've been reading about drupal install profiles, and I'm wondering if there's much of a difference between using a packaged install profile vs. installing core + manually installing the modules listed in the install profiles?
I'd like to do the latter (manually installing each) to control the versions of each module installed, which I can't control with a packaged install profile that may not have been maintained.
But should I or will I be opening the door to something I'm not aware of? Shouldn't the 2 be identical, just one automated and other is manual?
What kiamlaluno said, plus the fact that installation profiles may perform custom configuration of settings on install, might construct custom views/content-types/etc (especially by means of features.module, which you can see heavy use of in OpenAtrium), and might provide other custom code in distro-specific module.
The short answer is, no you can't just replicate an install profile by downloading a clean drupal with all those modules -- best bet is to use the install profile. If you're worried about module versions, just make sure you're using a profile that's actively maintained.
The difference is that an installation profile includes the right version of all the modules it needs.
This means that differently from manually installing each module, you don't need to verify the correct version of the module X that effectively works together the module Y; there are few cases where one module doesn't work well when version A of another module is installed, and you need to install version B of the same module, if you don't want problems.
An installation profile can have a custom installation page that allows you to change some parameters of your site; it also allows the installation profile author to define a patch that needs to be applied a module, in order to fix a bug of the module, or to make it work better with another module.
If you need to set a site to work for a particular purpose, installation profiles are useful for you as they allow you to set the site correctly without to know all the details about how a Drupal site needs to be set.
I believe you can specify the versions of the modules you want to install see
When I was upgrding my webite from drupal 4.7 to 5.2, I am facing an issue -
Fatal error: Call to undefined function node_get_base() in ../question.module.
Can any one help me to solve it...
Thanks in advance
The root of your problem is that you have some code in the file question.module calling a deprecated function (node_get_base()). Drupal 5.2 does not implement anymore that function so you get the error...
I assume that the question.module you are using is this one, which does exist for Drupal 5 series. If I am right, then I suspect you have missed to follow the upgrade instructions for updating your site which state:
5) Disable all custom and contributed modules.
[..]
11) Ensure that the versions of all custom and contributed modules match the new Drupal version to which you have updated. For a major update, such as from 5.x to 6.x, modules from previous versions will not be compatible and updated versions will be required.
12) Re-enable custom and contributed modules and re-run update.php to update custom and contributed database tables.
These instructions are in the UPGRADE.txt file in the Drupal root folder.
Hope this helps!
When upgrading Drupal to a new release, you more or less in some respects have to build the site over again. The thing is, that because the Drupal API changes to much in the new releases, each module will need to be replaced with a new one. In most cases this is just a matter of downloading a new version of the module and running update.php.
You should, however, go through each of your modules and find out what's needed to make the upgrade. Sometimes the upgrade path can be a bit tricky and you need a few attempts to get it right without corrupting any data in the process.
Another thing is, that when upgrading, going for the drupal 5 version of the same module might not always be the best choice. Especially when talking about Drupal 5, there are a lot of more or less unmaintained modules. So the best choice might be to find a different module that can do what you want, or even fulfill more of your needs.
It's always a hard decision and your theme will also need to be upgraded to Drupal 5. In short there is a lot of work evolved when doing a major upgrade. Most of it, is making some good choices about, which modules to use and how to migrate your data.
All that aside, following the upgrade guide in UPGRADE.txt like mac suggests is a very good place to start, and doing all of this leg work, would probably have avoided all this.