Support for Drupal 7 is ending on 5 January 2025—it’s time to migrate to Drupal 10! Learn about the many benefits of Drupal 10 and find migration tools in our resource center.
When experimenting with various installs of 5.0-beta2 I even read some of the documentation. One piece that confused me was sites/all/README.txt
// $Id: README.txt,v 1.1 2006/11/11 22:53:59 drumm Exp $
This directory should be used to place downloaded and custom modules and
themes which are common to all sites. This will allow you to more easily
update Drupal core files.
When I put a custom module in this directory it wasn't found by Drupal v5 and couldn't be configured. I subsequently found that when I used a subdirectory for the downloaded modules called "modules" Drupal V5 was able to find them. I presume a similar directory naming is required for themes also.
Now so long as I've understood this correctly I suggest the README.txt wording is changed:
// $Id: README.txt, ...
This directory should be used to place downloaded and custom modules and
themes which are common to all sites. This will allow you to more easily
update Drupal core files.
All downloaded custom modules should be placed in a subdirectory called
modules and all custom themes should be placed in a subdirectory called
themes as follows:
settings/all/modules
settings/all/themes
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#8 | readme_subdir_explain.patch | 617 bytes | vjordan |
Comments
Comment #1
vjordan CreditAttribution: vjordan commentedActually, I think this is a bug report of sorts, rather than a feature request.
Comment #2
gregglesThis seems like a good improvement.
I'm changing the status as this is not a patch - see http://drupal.org/diffandpatch for instructions on creating patches.
For relatively trivial changes like docs I think it can be useful to decide on the text prior to creating the patch. My preference would be for the language to read:
Comment #3
vjordan CreditAttribution: vjordan commentedGreg, Thanks for the guidance on using the patching system - first toe in the water for me.
+1 for your wording which is clear, concise and complete.
Following the revision process and the related href="http://drupal.org/node/45111"> priority levels of issues I suggest the following:
Does this sound about right?
Apologies for cluttering this bug but it's kind of related: would it be good practice to create issues for http://drupal.org/node/22283 (best practices for file/directory management) and http://drupal.org/node/53705 ("using the /sites directory") given that sites/all now comes into play? If so, how would one go about this?
Comment #4
pwolanin CreditAttribution: pwolanin commentedI made quick updates to: http://drupal.org/node/22283, and http://drupal.org/node/53705
post your feedback here rather than opening new issues.
Comment #5
gregglesThanks, pwolanin.
@vjordan - if you are interested in revising the documents in the handbook please join the http://lists.drupal.org/listinfo/documentation documentation list and hang out for a little while providing feedback on ideas. Then you can ask for permission to edit the handbook (the hanging around and providing input makes you more likely to be approved quickly, you can ask sooner if you feel that's justified).
Comment #6
oadaeh CreditAttribution: oadaeh commentedAs long as you're trying to correct the text, can you please make sure it says:
instead of:
Comment #7
vjordan CreditAttribution: vjordan commentedoadaeh: thanks for correcting the error in directory naming. It would have really confused the likes of me.
pwolanin - some suggestions on your quick updates...
http://drupal.org/node/53705
I seem to understand better when information is presented in small or really small chunks. This is a style thing rather than a principle so I can live with what you have. How would the following read (but note the two typo corrections anyway)?
http://drupal.org/node/53705
Maybe just change "For a normal (single site) installation..." to "For a single site installation..."
Comment #8
vjordan CreditAttribution: vjordan commentedThe patch based on the above is attached. Not sure I have all the patch headers correct.
Comment #9
pwolanin CreditAttribution: pwolanin commentedIf you want this kind of change i think the issue needs to be against the drupal project (i.e. it's one of the files in the distribution)
Comment #10
pwolanin CreditAttribution: pwolanin commentedthis is an important clarification
Comment #11
Dries CreditAttribution: Dries commentedCommitted to CVS HEAD. Thanks.
Comment #12
(not verified) CreditAttribution: commented