Closed
Bug 297483
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
Remove comment from installation.xml about 'module-check' switch being needed as it's already available
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Documentation, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.20
People
(Reporter: cso, Assigned: cso)
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
|
1.98 KB,
patch
|
gerv
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
<!-- We really need a "module-check" switch for checksetup, which we can use here to make it really clear when they've got all the modules. --> I suggest removing the comment and adding a description of the --check-modules switch to the file, as well as using it in the command line above.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #186070 -
Flags: review?(documentation)
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
It seems this should be followed up with an addition / modification to checksetup.pl to do a better job of explaining what to do in the event of a MySQL connection failure. See bug 297672 for a suggestion on what text to display.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
Whats that got to do with the bit on checking for modules?
Comment 4•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 186070 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v1 I'm not convinced this is a good idea, and I'm somewhat inclined to r- this. checksetup will already tell you if all the modules are installed, so there's not much point in making someone run it with --check-modules and then again without it. Can't we just tell the user to run checksetup.pl, and if it tells them that modules are required to go ahead and install them before running checksetup again?
| Assignee | ||
Comment 5•19 years ago
|
||
Bug 232804 added the switch and specifically mentions that it would be useful to document it. I'm not particularly bothered about the text rewording - just removing the comment would do - but Gerv, who filed the original bug and fixed it to add the switch, obviously did. Adding him to CC for comments.
Comment 6•19 years ago
|
||
I'm fine with rewording the text, but I think it just confuses people to say that they should run checksetup with the switch and then without it. I would just tell people to run it without it, see if they need to install anything, and then run it again the same way they did before. If we want to document the switch, we can always put a note in somewhere to explain that you can use it.
Comment 7•19 years ago
|
||
The reason they run with the switch and then without it is to stage the installation. Without the switch, it's very easy to run it one time too many and accept the default "localconfig" instead of editing it first. This prevents that possibility. However, checking the latest manual, it seems that the advice to use the switch has been removed? Gerv
| Assignee | ||
Comment 8•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #7) > However, checking the latest manual, it seems that the advice to use the switch > has been removed? Gerv Was it ever added? That was one of the purposes of this bug - the other was to remove the comment which is no longer valid...
Comment 9•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 186070 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v1 This patch is good, but the "rerun without --check-modules" part should be in section 2.2.1 (HTML numbering) - i.e. the first section in configuration.xml. There's already text in there about what happens when you've got all the modules; modify that to say "when all the modules are installed, run checksetup.pl again like this" and give the command line. Gerv
Attachment #186070 -
Flags: review?(documentation) → review-
| Assignee | ||
Comment 10•19 years ago
|
||
Changes as suggested previously.
Attachment #186070 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #189320 -
Flags: review?(gerv)
Comment 11•19 years ago
|
||
Colin: Patch v2 doesn't seem to implement comment #9, although your comment suggested it would. What have I missed? Gerv
| Assignee | ||
Comment 12•19 years ago
|
||
The second part of the diff is in the section referenced in Comment 9...
Comment 13•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 189320 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v2 How right you are. Sorry. :-) r=gerv. Gerv
Attachment #189320 -
Flags: review?(gerv) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 14•19 years ago
|
||
2.20: Checking in docs/xml/installation.xml; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/installation.xml,v <-- installation.xml new revision: 1.98.2.3; previous revision: 1.98.2.2 done [Finished] Trunk: Checking in docs/xml/installation.xml; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/installation.xml,v <-- installation.xml new revision: 1.101; previous revision: 1.100 done [Finished]
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•19 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.20
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•