Learn how easy it is to sync an existing GitHub or Google Code repo to a SourceForge project! See Demo
I tried to find some hints in the documentation, but the related section only appeared as empty space.
So, how do I add another user other than by manually entering an additional line in the refbase user table?
> how do I add another user
Login as admin, then click on the "Add User" link in the to right corner of the screen.
The email address of the admin can be set in variable '$adminLoginEmail' (in file 'initialize/ini.inc.php').
See also the troubleshooting section at:
Let us know if you still can't get it working.
Best regards, Matthias
yes, that was it - thanks a lot!
The point is, that at the time of the installation it was said that the first user that will be defined, is automagically the (new) system admin user. Obviously it was not so, and I was not elected as such. :-) Could it be that the respective information at the time of installation is a bit misleading?
Thanks for the fast response that set me going!
> at the time of the installation it was said that the
> first user that will be defined, is automagically the
> (new) system admin user.
Hmm, where do you see this? I must admit that I'm not aware of such a statement. Maybe some wording was confusing to you? If so, do you remember which one?
AFAIK, all installation-related documentation mentions clearly that variable '$adminLoginEmail' in 'ini.inc.php' must be set correctly (after adding your own admin user). This includes:
'INSTALL' file in download package (section "How to setup your own admin user?")
Contrastingly, the description in the actual install script talks about the *MySQL* database admin user (and *not* the refbase admin), see e.g. here:
I agree that all this can be confusing for new users trying to install refbase. If you can point us to the part(s) in the documentation that got you confused, we may be able to improve the wording.
> I agree that all this can be confusing for new users trying to install refbase.
> If you can point us to the part(s) in the documentation that got you confused,
> we may be able to improve the wording.
Being now in a state of productivity with refbase, I'd rather like not to tinker around with the present installation. :-)
But I'll try to set it up on another comp for a further test, and I'll scrutinize the wording etc. along that installation. I may have to postpone that for a couple of days, though, due to high workload, but I'll give it a try and report on it!
But anyhow, an installation procedure with a "remember to set XYZ afterwards by doing ABC" is not a good idea, IMHO. You are doing so many things in the setup work flow, why not integrate those rather small steps at the respective places so the reiteration of some unfinished steps would be unneccessary?
> But anyhow, an installation procedure with a "remember to set XYZ
> afterwards by doing ABC" is not a good idea, IMHO.
FWIW, I fully agree with you. I know this may sound lame but developing a good and fool-proof installer is a project by its own. Since our development ressources are rather limited, the improvements planned for the installer were always pushed back, since other things seemed to be more important.
Any less-than stellar installer can, of course, have quite some negative impact on the initial user's perceived quality of the software. So it definitively *is* important.
> You are doing so many things in the setup work flow, why not
> integrate those rather small steps at the respective places so the
> reiteration of some unfinished steps would be unneccessary?
The reason is simply that this would require the installer script to write its settings to the config file. From my experience, handling file/folder permission issues correctly is often a receipt for trouble. That said, there are of course great OS projects which employ such mechanisms successfully. So we should look into how they are doing it. Anyways, all this costs a lot of time (more than one would initially think of)... Of course, I'm more than happy for people willing to help out.
Please don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a fully graphical installer as much as you do. We just need to balance this requirement with other long-standing issues/requests.
I fully agree with you that a sensible installer *is* a real project!
But please don't get me wrong on my claims - I would not suggest a graphical installer, only some automagic for things that tend to go wrong and are to be set in a definite way.