On Saturday 06 October 2001 22:17, you wrote: > The latter repligard_withsg.xml has been used. Since you didnot comment > the ambigous behaviour about the sitergroup field it seems _not_ to be a > problem how I removed this sitegroup reference. I replaced every > occurence of <sitegroup>[0-9a-z]*</sitegroup> against > <sitegroup></sitegroup> and the resource allocation error vanished with > it. However the question leaves why I had to do so ?
I didn't answer that part because I don't know how it works. Alexander will have to fill this gap. > If you have a look at http://insight.kn-bremen.de:8080/Guild/home you > will not find mgd_include_snippet missing. Instead the function > bremgard_page_walk that should have been included and that can be found > e.g. using asgard is reported to be undefined. Asgard itself on the site > wouldnot work if mgd_include_snippet would be really missing. Right. The bremgard_page_walk is defined in a snippet? > The > problem seems to come from the fact that the string to the path in > mgd_include_snippet is not checked or cannot be checked now (Beside the > fact that the path is found by tracking it inside of asgard). I will do > some analysis on it e.g. by moving the bremgard-function. You could test like $code = mgd_snippet($path). If the returned string is empty it couldn't find the snippet. > The midgard release is 1.4.1 07/2001 CVS and has nothing special > compiled.It uses e.g. --with-pagelinks. But it has not compiled on the > target system where the target midgard is used. Instead I installed all > midgard libs and the mod_midgard.so from the source system. Therefor no > error should happen that cannot be found at home where the source system > is working. I'm afraid the problem comes from the new mixed database. > Now it just looks mixed up sometimes. Could be, I can't assess that without having done the upgrade procedure on your database. > 1:1 backup of the target database should not be required because it > would be rebuild by using the former sitegroup. Although there are many > test-sitegroup on the target midgard only one sitegroup was required to > be saved. However I think it would be enough to import the xml-file that > was used here into a new database with or without asgard. After creation > of a new sitegroup e.g. bremen import the bremgard-1.61.xml.gz. You > find it and repligard.conf at ftp://insight.kn-bremen.de/pub/midgard/xml It should not be required, no, but it's usually a good idea to keep pre-import backups. I downloaded the two files, and after changing the username & password bremgard imported without comment into my database. How should I access Bremgard? > I felt at the beginning that you may have overseen my xml-patch with > much impact. As long as it expects the source sitegroup link by GUID on > the target system the import won't work. Otherwise if I would not take > it out repligard stops with the allocation error. What is the sitegroup > link good for during import if the sitegroup should be already addressed > more dynamic by the sitegroup login in the conf file ? However if it's > still really required it may have been an mistake to get it out but then > it looks like a design bug to me. I really can't answer these questions, sorry. I know what sitegroups does but very little of how repligard handles them. Alexander, please step in, I'm way out of my depth here. Emile --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
