upgrading my phpbb ver

New Member Joined: May 01, 2005 Posts: 13

hi...

i have Version: 2.0.6 of phpbb....

i want to upgrade my version to 2.0.1.4.

i need to install

2.0.7
and
2.0.8
and
2.0.9
and
2.0.10
and
2.0.11
and
2.0.12
and
2.0.13
and after
2.0.1.4

??

or i can install 2.0.1.4 without all versions?

tnx

Sells PC To Pay For Divorce Joined: Posts: 5661

i suggest you do it step by step and not taking any short cuts.. Smile

Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 11:03 am

I further recommend that you do extensive testing after each level upgrade, so that in the event that something suddenly stops working correctly you have a much better chance of isolating the culprit code.

Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 5:10 pm

To answer your question, you MUST do them one at a time.

bbtonuke updates are maintained at [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

If you have a lot of custom mods, you should keep in mind that you may (but not necessarily) lose the mods after updating and thus will be forced to reapply the mods after finishing your updates.

I just got done explaining the update procedures for another user (from 2.0.10 to 2.0.14) in the post at: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

You should follow those instructions.

Now, I want to note that you are REQUIRED to be running at least Nuke 6.9 to update bbtonuke past version 2.0.6.

In your case, you would start with:
bbtonuke 2.0.6d - [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

Then bbtonuke 2.0.7a - [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

Then bbtonuke 2.0.8 - [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

Then bbtonuke 2.0.9 - [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

Then bbtonuke 2.0.10 - [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ]

Then simply follow my instructions from the other post at: [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ] to complete the process to 2.0.14.

I wouldn't do the "extensive testing" after each update as you will find that each one has problems that are addressed in the next fix. Suffice it to say that your best bet is to simply test forums after each update... if they run, move on to the next update. Again, remember to read the installation notes and to delete each "updater" file after performing each update so that some schmuck doesn't come up behind you and run an update that would revert you to a previous version.

Hope this helps.
Steph

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 12:22 am

64bitguy wrote:

Now, I want to note that you are REQUIRED to be running at least Nuke 6.9 to update bbtonuke past version 2.0.6.

Not to muddy the waters, but I'm using bbtonuke 2.0.14 on my PHP-Nuke 6.5 based web site, so it IS possible to apply the upgrades to versions '<=' 6.9 Wink

Just make sure to apply all upgrades, in sequence, as recommended above...

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 1:36 am

Doh...

I know you must be right.... as I know sometimes I can have too many notes.... My bad. I've been tracking these (and changes) since 2.0.6

I thought the 2.0.6d had some 7.0 deal.... for some reason I have it in my notes as requiring 7.0 and/or 7.1... I also have notes about the 2.0.11 update including patched 2.9 mods for 7.x. I'm not sure at this point if it is my notes or what.... I looked over at NukeResources, and I'm even more lost about the Nuke Version issues, but I would assume that anything beyond 6.5 should be fine.

I do have a couple of concerns as Patched 2.9 doesn't cover 6.9 Nuke, but rather starts at 7.0, so again, I wonder, especially since the standard bbtonuke packages identify Patched 2.9 and 7.0 as being minimum requirements >= 2.0.11...

In any event, I would always assume that even if this were the case, one could make the changes manually.

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 5:04 pm

I remember phpBB 2.0.11 being somewhat problematic, on PHP-Nuke 6.5, but the workaround was fairly simple. This might ring a bell, and help reconcile your notes...

Can BBtoNuke 2.0.11 be installed in Nuke 6.5?

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 5:23 pm

Cool.. Thanks, yeah, I think that was it.

I don't want to spin-off on a tangent, suffice it to say that the standard packages would require a certain level of Nuke *if you were following the standard upgrade path processes* (that is to say implementing the later updates verbatim per the installation instructions included with the bbtonuke port updates from Chatserv); however, with the caveat that if you are using a version of nuke < 7.0, it is possible to implement the bbtonuke port updates given that you modify them accordingly (as identified in that post).

This almost prompts the question, "Should there be two different bbtonuke update solutions?"... One path for Nuke versions <7.0 and one for >=7.0?

I suggest this not only because of the problems associated with "points" but also the patched revision situations.... As I'm not of the <7.0 camp (I started with 7.0); I'm unsure of the impacts (if any) of the level of "Patched" updates to the <7.0 versions.

Thus, I would have to stick by my original comments ONLY because if you were reading this and simply applying these updates from [ Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! ] "out of the box", you would have a problem if you didn't apply the modifications as identified in that post (and possibly others).

I'm unsure of any other problems that users *Might* experience relative to the "Patched" level as again, I don't have or work with pre-7.0 copies of Nuke so I just don't know. Maybe you can help clarify that.

Has anyone tested each individual "bbtonuke" revision post version 2.0.6d with standard Nuke 6.0 through 6.9 versions to see what files would need to be modified for each individual bbtonuke update through 2.0.14, for EACH version of nuke in that range? I'm sure someone must know. If so, maybe it's simply a matter of modifying the installation notes to correct the issue... but then again, maybe it's not. I just don't know.

Thanks
Steph