please take a look at this thread https://xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=43870&start=0&

imho there should be a way to install XOOPS without needing write access (as some web space's don't allow this), by downloading the neccessary files to install (like phpBB).

I consider this a bug, and so far no version of XOOPS will install without first having write access.

(PS: when you install phpBB, if it finds it cannot write to the hosted filesystem, it will attempt to send you the config file, which you then must re-upload yourself)

Thank you.

If the installed software has no write access how could XOOPS use the Cache folder ? Or how could smarty use the templates_c directory ?

highlander

genjix,

First, please do not cross post like this. I'm sorry nobody was able to help you in your previous thread, but it would be better to bump that thread than to start a new one.

Secondly, most CMSs require some form of write access to the server. phpBB is not a CMS, it is a Buliten Board system. The way they genrate pages is completely different. If XOOPS did not use the cache/ and templates_c/ folders it would be sloooooow! However, XOOPS does not require chmod 777 on a properly configured server. On every site/server I admin, cache/, templates_c/, and uploads are all chmod 755.

As far as your issue with SF.net servers go... I'm sorry for your problem, but this is not XOOPS fault and it is not a bug. If you *must* use SF.net servers, then I suggest you look at alternatives for your website. If you are receptive to paying for a hosting account, you can find some very good deals on the net that will give you everything you need.

Again, I'm sorry XOOPS will not work for you in your particular situation. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that XOOPS will work in *every* environment. Just because it doesn't, it doesn't mean it's a bug.

Best Regards,

James

ok, this wasn't meant to be a personal attack on XOOPS, just something I thought was wrong with it.

If this is the case, then looks like I will have to use one of my other webspace ;)... this would be useful in the FAQ (*wink* *wink*).

Quote:

Understood.

Quote:

Good suggestion.

Best Regards,

James

The problem with installing XOOPS on SF.net was discussed in another thread a few months ago.

Maybe you can try the solution they came up with.

LOL! Ironically, I was just getting ready to suggest symbolic links.

Good call rowdie!

BTW... FAQ published!

Link: Does XOOPS require write access to the server?

Best Regards,

James