Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

Edit description
Please do not post support questions here.


Further options for contacting appropriate people can be found at Communication.

Language:Project:Language policy English  Deutsch español français 日本語 한국어 Nederlands polski português русский ไทย 中文

archive of this page

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL
Ciencia Al Poder (talkcontribs)

It says there are signatures to verify the downloads, but there are no instructions about how to do the verification.

I found this link helpful:

I'm not sure if it would be good to add it to the page or not. Ideally we should write basic instructions so they can be translated.

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

Yeah, a very good idea. This would help enable a wider audience to do this.

Composer found a smart way of verification.

This comment was hidden by Kghbln (history)
John sizoro (talkcontribs)

Please this is a waste of time

This comment was hidden by Ciencia Al Poder (history)
Reply to "Verifying downloads with signatures"

Git: not just for devs

Summary by Gerdesj

Two positive responses seems more than enough! Documentation in progress

Gerdesj (talkcontribs)

For some time now I have been using git to grab particular releases (wmf.x) for my corporate wiki. As far as I can tell, I am basically doing what the biggest users of this software are doing (on a rather smaller scale) and gaining the benefit of getting arguably the best supported version at a point in time and the most functionality.

I've pretty much got updates to the: *yawn*, do it (whilst having a glass of wine) with minimal downtime.

I have pretty complete docs for installation and updating using git (--depth=1) and a system of symlinking to avoid nasty surprises and make switching from one version to the next very rapid whilst providing a way back.

Anyone have any problems with me pushing git installs on this page as a reasonable way to install the software beyond simply for development?

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

No, at least I do not have any issues with this. Perhaps you could create a dedicated subpage describing your process and link to it from here just to avoid this page to get crowded.

Gerdesj (talkcontribs)

Yes, a subpage would be a good idea.

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

I'd say go for it! :)

Gerdesj (talkcontribs)

User:Gerdesj/GIT Install - work in progress. When I've dusted down the basics I'll move it into place

Reply to "Git: not just for devs"
Summary by MarkAHershberger

Siebrand: It is done.

Siebrand (talkcontribs)

Should we really remove all PHP4 mentions now? It's ancient...

This comment was hidden by Nakon (history)
This comment was hidden by Nakon (history)
Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

This post by Nemo bis was moved on 2012-08-15. You can find it at Thread:Talk:Download/Class=mediawiki dont work correct.

This comment was hidden by Clump (history)
This comment was hidden by Clump (history)

Required PHP version mentioned is wrong at system requirements

5 (talkcontribs)

Hello, I see a possible bug on this page at the system requirements. On this page it says "MediaWiki requires PHP 5.2.3+". I think this should be "MediaWiki requires PHP 5.3.2+" as on the main installation paragraph it says at the system requirements that it needs at least PHP version 5.3.2. So the 2 and the 3 are problably swapped by mistake.

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

Hi, indeed some documentation here appears to be messed up somehow. It is PHP 5.2.3+, except for PHP 5.3.1. I will try to rectify this. Cheers

Jars99~mediawikiwiki (talkcontribs)

A few things are messed up. This page says 5.3.2+, but this other page says 5.2.3 is okay. I just tried to upgrade my mediawiki install to 1.20, and I get an error saying that PHP 5.3.2 is required.

This post was posted by Jars99~mediawikiwiki, but signed as Jars99.

Jasper Deng (talkcontribs)

That page needs to be updated when the final release of 1.20 comes out, as 1.20's release notes do indeed say it'll need 5.3+

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

The pages were rectified in the meantime, now that 1.20 was released.

Adding links to Software bundles and hosting services

Mitevam (talkcontribs)

Hi all,

I think it's a good idea to add links to Software_bundles and Hosting_services to inform users about possible alternative ways to install MediaWiki. I wanted to ask if that sound reasonable? Also, what would be a good location on the page for that? My idea was to add a "Alternative ways to install" section above Installation assistance, but it doesn't seem very visible. I imagine most people won't even go that far down in the page. Any thoughts?

Qgil-WMF (talkcontribs)

The two links you propose are the two links already offered at "Alternative ways to install", aren't they.

About the visibility, I agree. A sim[ple way to solve it would be to have a first paragraph in the page along these lines:

These instructions refer to the officially supported MediaWiki installation process. If you are looking for alternatives check the pre-integrated MediaWiki software appliances or hosting services with 1-click installation products.

This post was posted by Qgil-WMF, but signed as Qgil.

Mitevam (talkcontribs)

Yes, those are the two links. No objected so I added them. A first paragraph seemed like pushing it a little bit, so I moved the section up right under the latest release.

Discussion: Whether or not we should how to "shallow" clone the repository

Wikinaut (talkcontribs)

I was unsure, whether it makes sense to add in section Download#Development releases the following:

By using the depth parameter as shown in the following, you can download a "shallow" clone which saves bytes, bandwidth and time, [but can lead to problems if you are developer, because earlier commits might be required but are missing when you want update using "git pull"]:

git clone --depth 1

scribunto error message on this page

1 (talkcontribs)

Hello, just downloading mediawiki to try out installing on a USB today (it sounded like fun at the time). I thought that I'd mention that there appears to be some kind of error message on this page just below the system requirements paragraph:

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module `Module:Category handler/data' not found.


    [C]: in function "error"
    package.lua:80: in function "load"
    package.lua:99: ?
    (tail call): ?
    mw.lua:493: in function "executeModule"
    mw.lua:764: in function "loadData"
    Module:Category_handler:249: in function "categoryHandler"
    Module:Message_box:484: in function "setBoxParameters"
    Module:Message_box:625: ?
    (tail call): ?
    mw.lua:518: ?
    [C]: in function "expandTemplate"
    mw.lua:313: ?
    (tail call): ?
    mw.lua:518: ?

Cheers. - 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

Can we make this page translatable?

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

This page really looks bad after its transition to TUX. It will be cool if somebody removed the second transclusion of languages. I believe it comes from the embedded translatable template but do not know how to fix this.

Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

Nothing to do with TUX, Template:DownloadMediaWiki's languages list had to be noinclude'd. Someone had added translate tags and I didn't want to revert but then I was forced to mark for translation in order to transclude it. Now someone needs to import the old translations (as should have been done for this page too, no idea why it was not).

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

Ah, cool I thought it must have been something trivial and I am sorry for the blaming TUX. Thanks for your help and insight!

Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

Now Ata is importing the old translations and Ciencia Al Poder kindly fixed an error in the template that I had overlooked (blindly trusting the previous editors...).

Kghbln (talkcontribs)

I guess this is online collaboration at it's best. Thanks for following up. :)