Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
Tony Hoyle schrieb: > There have been no changes with ampersand modules since 2.0.5, which is > reported to be working OK. Presumably you're using a configuration which is > unusual - can you post your modules file? > > TBH I'd avoid them like the plague - the code that produces them has so many > exceptions in it now I'm tempted to ditch the whole modules system and rewrite > it anyway... it's only a matter of time before something gets corrupted. > > Tony > There is just that one line in my modules file, exactly like mod &mod1 &mod2 &mod3 &mod4 &mod5 &mod6 &mod7 &mod8 &mod9 &mod10 &mod11 "mod" itself contains no files and does not even have a folder in the repository. Apart from that and maybe the number (11) of ampersand modules, I don't think it is an unusal configuration..? Am I making mistakes here that just "accidentially" work in 2.0.3? When i checkout "mod" with 2.0.3, cvs creates mod, mod\ampmod1, mod\ampmod2, ..., mod\ampmod11, all works fine as I expected. Checking out "mod" with 2.0.5 and 2.0.6 hangs at the end of ampmod2, giving the "something bad" msg and error 50 when creating the crash dump. Today I also realized that it checks out ampmod1 to mod\ampmod1\ampmod1 and ampmod2 to mod\ampmod2\ampmod2. As you say you didn't change it between 2.0.5 and 2.0.6, I guess 2.0.5 will do the same but I didn't notice. ampmod1 does not have subdirectories, ampmod2 does. There has been a posting on 5th of July "ampersand module not working in 2.05", seems to be the same problem. I tried to reply to that, but the mail bounced :-( reason: 554 <cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook>: Recipient address rejected: Access denied I remember there have been problems in 2.0.3 in relation with ampersand modules and the -d parameter, reported on this list around may 7th. But, as I don't need -d, 2.0.3 works fine for me. I see it is a complex issue, and fixing one end may break the other (guess that happened 2.0.3>2.0.4/5) - rewriting might be a good idea. If you need any more information, or want me to check with current development version, I can do that tomorrow. I could also try to reproduce the problem with a sample module in a test repository, zip that and mail it to you. Kai