Geeklog Forums

When I installed the new RC2, the first thing that happened was that my index page was destroyed.

At last, I found out that although I haven't pressed install for the tables (as you said there's no need), it messed up a picture (JPG) in one of my articles. I have no idea how could it do this. I haven't touched that article in days! It worked fine until RC2. What it did was messing the "img src" code.

Anyway, I've edited the article and removed the JPG and order was restored.

...until I tried to upload the JPG from scratch and the index page was ruined again!

So basically, from now on, I can't use (new) images. Each time I try, its specific article gets ruined and so does every index page that features it.

Meanwhile, netpbm has stopped working.
I notice than the 1.3.10rc1/2 versions use "pnmtojpeg". I can tell you that the last gallery version of netpbm that supported Linux Redhat is from 2001 and it doesn't have such a file whatsoever.
What can I do about this?

pnmtojpeg replaces the older ppmtojpeg (that's actually a change in the NetPBM package). And Geeklog started using pnmtojpeg in 1.3.10rc1 already.

If you don't have pnmtojpeg, either update your NetPBM installation or try renaming ppmtojpeg to pnmtojpeg.

It has nothing to do with PNG images, btw. Both "ppm" and "pnm" are internal formats used by NetPBM.

bye, Dirk

Well, it was still RC2 which ruined an article for me...
I still don't understand how it happened. The strange thing is that before deleting the image, I looked and the database entry was totally correct.

Anyway, as you can see, if I have Linux Redhat, I can only download v1.1 from 2001.

I believe that the "linux-intel" version of 1.4pl2 would work fine.

Why intel?

Seriously, should I download the intel version even though I have Redhat?

Have you tried renaming ppmtojpeg to pnmtojpeg as I already suggested above?

bye, Dirk

I'll try it later, but if I can upgrade, I rather do it anyway.

I just don't know why this user thinks Linux Intel is the same as Redhat? And if it doesn't matter anyway, why not Linux Alpha?

Well, I assume your RedHat Linux is running on an Intel (or compatible) processor, not on an Alpha ...

Btw, a user over on geeklog.info had the same problem and reported that
a) renaming worked
b) the Intel version is the correct one but seems to have other problems (confirmed in the Gallery forum - try searching there)

bye, Dirk

Does i686 mean intel?
That's the best uname will give me...
Do you have a direct command to show me my linux type?

And if I need Intel, why didn't they name the old version just that too instead of adding Redhat to the name?

P.S.
That forum is huge. What topic exactly should I look for?

Thanks!

Dirk did you mean a thread similiar to this one on newer versions not getting along w/ older kernels?

LWC .. yeah i686 means Intel. As why they had a separate file for redhat before I don't know .. perhaps it was an RPM? Or perhaps it was compiled to deal w/ some speacial RH issue? Also the release date for that RH package was 2001 so RH was most likely the top distro for home users at the time.

The entire point in this site is that it's the only site in the entire Internet that gives you strict binary files for Netpbm.

Those files turn installing Netpbm from a headache into nothing more than putting the files where you want them...

So no, it's not RPM.

As for the official release, if its author bothered to lead you hand by hand through the installation, maybe I'd do it the "official" way.
But instead, the author chooses to sum it all up with just "oh, you need to install it".

Anyway, if you all think Intel is the answer than I'll try it and tell you the results.

Oops, please delete this post...

Ok, here are the results...
In both cases (renaming and upgrading)...my index/this specific article page gets totally ruined again!
In other words, I get the very thing that made me start this topic in the first place!

Here is the offending code:

It has so many mistakes I don't know what to begin with...

So it really was a Geeklog error all along. For some entirely different reason, it got somehow involved with a Netpbm error, but it's still a Geeklog error.

I've just confirmed what I said.

Here's what happens when I post a "smaller than the limit" picture (i.e. Netpbm is not involved at all):

So forget the Netpbm discussion. Let's talk about what has 1.3.9.10rc1/2 done to the images engine (I haven't posted a picture when I had rc1 so I can't tell which of them caused the problem).

As someone pointed out in some other discussion, it appears that COM_makeClickableLinks is not working as expected. And it seems my regexp-fu is not strong enough to fix it easily ...

In the meantime, it helps to post stories in HTML mode if you intend to upload images for them.

bye, Dirk

You're right. It works in HTML.