failed to open stream: Permission denied is telling me your host is restricting you through security. PHP settings or something.
That might have been the case, but if it were, SMF would have encountered it before TP. I've gotten those on my dedicated servers - and I set those up.
I'm not quite sure about that Twins. When SMF installs it doesn't have to actually open the files for editing. All the files are there and already installed AFAIK. Installing Mods requires the opening and editing of files. I could be wrong, but that's the way I see it.
Sometimes, with as many different hosting setups we come across, it could be either.
I know that just this weekend, I had the same warning (different file) appear when i tried to uninstall that silly SMF Arcade from a 1.0.6 board. Then I had it happen with an install (same test site) with RC2. It happened not because of server permissions (remember, I have full root access on a ded server), but because of that silly file ownership issue in some SMF theme files. A few weeks ago, I had a similar message appear when I was trying to install a mod on a production site - I had to uninstall another mod, then reinstall it after I got the new mod working.
SMF's package manager is very poorly done.
SMF's package manager is very well done. If there are problems, they are caused by badly managed servers. If the incredibly secure and reliable linux permissions settings are not allowing access to a file, how could you expect SMF to be able to overrule that?
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 06:39:24 AM
SMF's package manager is very well done. If there are problems, they are caused by badly managed servers. If the incredibly secure and reliable linux permissions settings are not allowing access to a file, how could you expect SMF to be able to overrule that?
It isn't in the servers - it is normally in the file modification conflicts.
In some cases, it could be shared host issues, running in safe mode. But normally, this isn't an issue unless you're running a free host or ultra-cheap offering. If you are, you get what you pay for.
Regardless, an awful lot of assumptions are being made without getting the facts. No one has asked anything to ascertain this person's configuration. As I mentioned, I've had similar errors on installations performed on a dedicated server - my dedicated server. I don't go cheap and I am not someone who has only run phpBB and then SMF. I have admin privileges on over 40 sites, owning over 30 of those - you name the platform and I've probably run it. In fact, I am probably running it now.
If the package manager is so great, why have I had to manually install better than half of my SMF modifications - all picked up on the SMF site (except TP)? My Joomla, Mambo, Xoops & e107 sites have needed no manual installs, with over 20 mods each.
You can't blame SMF for people writing bad mods. There are many docs and topics around the SMF forum explaining how mods should be written. Inexperienced writers will place huge sections of code in the search tags, when really, usually only a tiny piece of code is needed to get a unique location in a file. It is these large code excerpts which cause conflicts, but how can you blame SMF for that?
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 08:16:48 AM
You can't blame SMF for people writing bad mods.
I most certainly can if the mods are available on the SMF site. By offering them on the main site, there is a presumed validity to the product, an assumed compatibility. I have not installed any mod not available on the SMF site except for TP - that I got here. Interestingly (and thankfully), TP hasn't caused me any trouble.
There is a reason most of the competing message boards do not offer modifications on the main site. In fact, many even discourage modifications, saying if you modify, they are no longer responsible for the code. Yet SMF has it right out there, on the front page - implying that the mods within are suitable for use with the software:
Customize SMF your way - complete with a pretty little graphic. In fact, the modifications take front page precedence over features and support. In order: Download, Customize, Features, Support.
Having a package manager also makes a claim, even though SMF doesn't write any of the mods - if they did, they'd simply package it in with the core install.
I don't know which continent you live on (I don't often check profiles), so I hope you understand this analogy: If I buy a Kenmore washing machine from Sears, and it breaks, do I blame Whirlpool? No, I call Sears, because that is where I bought it. It doesn't matter that Kenmore washing machines are made by Whirpool. What matters to me is that Kenmore is a Sears brand. The performance of that machine will reflect on Sears and not Whirlpool. I got the mods from SMF - it matters not who wrote them.
As I said, I've not had any mod issues with Joomla, Mambo, Xoops or e107 mods - they all offer ACP installation features and the mods are written by third party developers.
So yes - if the mod is offered and promoted by SMF, I can blame them for a shoddy component, no matter who wrote it. It is called implied endorsement.
That is a bad attitude to have.
And if you haven't installed mods, then what is causing your problems?!
Quote from: TwinsX2Dad on March 20, 2006, 07:47:08 AM
If the package manager is so great, why have I had to manually install better than half of my SMF modifications - all picked up on the SMF site (except TP)?
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 09:39:21 AMAnd if you haven't installed mods, then what is causing your problems?!
Now I see what the problem is - you're not reading what I post. This explains a number of questions I've had to re-answer and re-explain.
I get confused easily. And yes I did misread your last post sorry :(
QuoteAs I've said several times before - if SMF is good enough for you, then by all means, use it. The price is right and the features are sufficient.
There is also a large link on the top bar to the support page, and the community forum, whereas there isn't for Mods or features.
QuoteHaving a package manager also makes a claim, even though SMF doesn't write any of the mods - if they did, they'd simply package it in with the core install.
There are many mods made by the SMF team. They're produced as mods because the team has decided that they don't want them as standard features, even though the coding may be completely up to the standards.
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 09:55:03 AM
I get confused easily. And yes I did misread your last post sorry :(
No problem - and my apologies if I sound a bit harsh at times. It is really not intentional. I am doing several things at once and sometimes my frustration comes through.
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 09:55:03 AMThere is also a large link on the top bar to the support page, and the community forum, whereas there isn't for Mods or features.
Yes, true - but what catches your eye (at http://simplemachines.org) is the graphics menu at top center.
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 09:55:03 AMThere are many mods made by the SMF team. They're produced as mods because the team has decided that they don't want them as standard features, even though the coding may be completely up to the standards.
Okay - my wording was too vague there. I know many of the mods are written by members of the SMF 'team' but are they official releases? I'd also bet that more than one of the mods I had conflicts with were probably the creation of one of the 'team' members.
The question on mods would be along the lines of "is it an official release or not?" If it is an official release, then the burden of compatibility is greater. If it is not an official release, why is it featured on the official site?
A long time ago, I was a 'team' member for a phpBB fork. I wrote mods for it, but since I was not an actual part of the development of this particular fork, it mattered not what I wrote - it was not an official release, nor was it an 'approved' mod. I might post it in the support forums, just like any member could, but it was never available for official download. If there were mod issues, it was the mod writer's baby.
In the old site design there used to be a warning saying that the third party mods had to be installed at the forum admin's own risk, I'm not sure where that went to.
There are also some very dodgy mods, one I've reported allows anyone anywhere to run some very important SMF functions.
The only official SMF packages are the security updates, which generally don't seem to have problems. They normally touch only important security related source files. if there are clashes, you have to ask what mod is being installed that would change those important security functions.
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 10:25:02 AMone I've reported allows anyone anywhere to run some very important SMF functions.
Now that is scary. I wonder if it ever appeared in the Featured Mod section? :coolsmiley:
Time for me to recheck the server logs to make sure no one has been accessing my SMF.
No its not a featured mod. It only allows you to run functions, with no variables passed, but it could still cause problems.