You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Search options (Page 1 of 2)
Is this even something PunBB has fixed? I have been trying all possible methods to upgrade from 1.2.22 to PunBB 1.3 and every single time it cuts off all text in topics, posts etc etc etc whenever a non-English letter (å ä ö Å Ä Ö) appears.
I don't understand much of those possible solutions offered by non-staff in this topic more than that they are possible solutions and offered by non-staff.
What I can tell is that 99% of all data gets erased whenever I try to upgrade.
If there is a fix to this I have missed, a new version of the db_update.php file, please do tell me.
EDIT: I can confirm that toni0s solution does indeed work, if you get an error message with table bans or something, just run each section separately, that worked for me.
I would very much like some assistance with the same thing, unless there is some way to import them to a new PunBB version. This is very important to me since the old PM mod has been a part of the forum since 2007 or something and I really don't want to be stuck with the old mod.
So if somebody here could perhaps assist me with directing me to some kind of converter I would be grateful beyond my English vocabulary.
Create a new database means everything will be gone? Obviously not a choice.
And "dump db"? Seems a lot like erasing it to me.(?) :S
But if the only thing to do about it is to create a whole new database and "slowly import" everything made during the years..
Does noone know? 
I have tried to reinstall the DB Management by just replacing the file, ofc that did not work. Seems odd that just the structure option does work.
I do not know exactly when it failed to work properly but when looking at old files, it seems as the last functioning downloads were in Febraury this year. Since then I have made two upgrades.
1.2.19-1.2.20 and yesterday 1.2.20->1.2.21. This is FluxBB though, if that matters for this problem, but I got advised to ask here.
As I am aware of me not being skilled in codes and stuff, no heave editing the php files are made except for where mods have said I should add stuff, f.e the Private Message mod, or minor addings as more smileys.
One thing that might be something is that the site has been moved to a new server twice last month. But the content in config.php is allright, I believe, or otherwise (I presume) there would be an instant error message for the whole forum saying connection to the MySQL database was unsuccessful.
101% of the database was downloaded with 0 bytes per second for 1 seconds.
I found out just now and it has worked perfectly fine when it comes to loading down files that actually contains something until a couple of months ago.
It does load down something when it is set on "Structure" but options "Full" and "Data" gives zero results. Private messaging does seem to work as well, but only with the functioning "Structure" option.
I srsly really appreciate it if someone could help to tell why the sql file is empty when downloaded. :S
Maybe this is something that could happen with PunBB as well? :/
Ofc, the DB management is frequently used.
So what does that mean, that it just is to upgrade as usual?
Hello. I wonder, is it possible to upgrade FluxBB1.2.20 to the newest PunBB 1.2 version?
I have not been here lately so I'm not engaged in what is possible and not regarding this. 
Thank you.
No one who knows this? :S Just so they can't see the userlist. Of course not search on the userlist as well, but that have I turned off in options.
MattF wrote:Gotipe wrote:What is meant with "fork" in this case?
I do not understand, is this FluxBB going to be straight off the same as PunBB, just with a new name, so there'll be two of them now?
A fork is, in the most basic way of explaining it, a completely separate version, based on the same source code, but with a different set of goals over the long term. Initially, differences will be minor, but later on, as things progress, larger differences between the two will occur.
Ah, thanks. Figured it was something like that, but always nice with confirmation. 
pedrotuga wrote:The new punbb owner should probably be disappointed with this move, but on the other hand this is very natural as he bought only the copyright of PUNBB code at that time and not punbb itslef, which is not possible to commercialize anyway due to its license.
Great, then I can't be charged for having a PunBB forum. 
What the... :S What is meant with "fork" in this case?
I do not understand, is this FluxBB going to be straight off the same as PunBB, just with a new name, so there'll be two of them now?
And will it come to that I have to pay for a PunBB-forum later on or do I just have to change "PunBB" to "FluxBB" on the forum.
(I am sorry to ask so many times, but as I do not know so much about this, I am concerned. Again, sorry.)
Hello! I wonder, how do you make so that guests can not see the userlist even if they by options in the admin panel are allowed to read the board?
If it is any help, I've PunBB 1.2.16,
I think I understand that some code has to be changed in a php-file, but I don't know which or what to be changed,
Whatever as long as it does not economically affect forums already installed on bought webhotel space. It seems only changes are made to the PunBB website, so the worst-case scenario isn't so close after all? :S I'll take it for what he said; "We do not want to bring revolutionary changes to the PunBB world ".
PunBB is popular, or? At least at those webpages I often visit (Who happen all to be Swedish PunBB-forums but wtf xD). If you have a free-hosted forum, PunBB according to me is way better than the phpBB.
Heh, all these posts 'bout paying for PunBB are worst scenario-situations that certainly would make me very sad.
I am not a juridical person who knows all rules and such, but is it possible for anyone to charge f.e me for having PunBB even if I got my latest version before they would've begun wanting money for it or is it just if I want to have a new extension or so? :S
(I read Anatoly's post and am ofc glad to hear that there are no direct thoughts of doing something like what I mentioned above.)
Great with some news about 1.3 even if it is the beta vers. at last.
S'rry for making a thread about this minor question, but could not find a collective thread for questions here.
Anyway, I was about to see if it was possible to make the Admin note on users profiles visible for all user groups. But I could not find the paragraph in the profile.php where such a thing might've been written? I wonder if anyone could help me with it. And if it is not possible at all, I apologize and ofc will erase this unnecessary topic.
Yeah, suppose so. Have already fixed one error out of 499, xD But thank you for that validator. I don't know why the one I used didn't show those errors but anyway, thx.
OK, sorry. But if you look here: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/vali … medium=all as I did, I did not see any problems.
But as it is my first webpage ever, and as stated in my first post in this topic, it might contain really many errors. I just tried to learn what those were.
OK. Figured that Firefox maybe want the CSS to be a bit more exact than IE, everything clearly typed. So the bgcolor is okay? Thanks. Although, I don't know what specification should be made to separate the columns. (If you look at the the page with IE, there are three separate columns).
xD OMG, yeah, I tested out so many doctypes that I might've forgotten to remove copied text. I'll insert the old doctype and maybe the 412 errors will be gone. The W3 validator have I checked before and then it seemed to be okay. Must've changed now then, :S
EDIT: Have changed back to the old shit. But I can't see why the background is white. Is it possible, as said above, that it react in such a way if the "#" before the haxadecimal color number is not written?
I have a tiny problem. I have gotten the knowledge that when you visit my n00by webpage with the Mozilla Firefox web browser, the background, in opposite to the hexadecimal colors I've written, is totally white. And some other problems are also quite visible when you compare the IE and Firefox.
I suspect there is a problem with the <doctype> and have tested a lot of variants. Does anyone know a doctype that might fix this problem, if it even is the doctype?
Posts found: 1 to 25 of 44