A slight WARNING:
The latest upgrade of xml-sitemap does not follow the normal upgrade procedure. A normal upgrade of the packages will BREAK xml-sitemap.
Also the uninstallation of 6.x-0. does not work!
Please update the procedure and describe how to do it immediately!
-------
1) I do now have two versions installed. Both the old 6.x-0 and the new 6.x-1-beta There are two different sections on the module page, one for 6.x-0 and one for 6.x-1. In other words they behave as two different modules and not an update of each other.
2) The uninstall of 6.0 does not remove the 6.0 part of the file. Somehow the old and new versions refer to each other in a cross functional way. The 6.x-1 XML-sitemap node for instance refers to 6.x-0 XML sitemap
Comments
Comment #1
avpadernoI am not sure what you mean; The project follows the only way to update a module: it uses update functions.
Anyway, that version is not supported, and updating from that version probably doesn't work.
Remove all the files, delete every tables used from the project (they all start with xmlsitemap), and remove any references to the project modules from the system database table. To install the newest version wait that #458546: Cache files are not created is fixed.
Comment #2
avpadernoComment #3
sl27257Thanks for your fast answer.
I basically had to do what you proposed. And now the sitemap.xml is not found any longer but that is due to the new fix you refer to.
What I meant is that something did not work during the upgrade. Normally you do not have to completely remove a module when upgrading (Because you do not want to remove your old configuring information) In this case something broke when skipped the removal of the old data. In this case some extra precaution is needed or at least some extra hands on.
Anyhow now it is almost working for me :-)
BR
/Thomas
Comment #4
Anonymous (not verified) commentedSince 6.x-0 was never released the support for the upgrade was never tested and won't be tested by the maintainers. If you use -dev releases the intra -dev upgrade path is your responsibility. This is true for all -dev files in all modules and Drupal core. If the user of 6.x-0.x-dev provides a patch that betters the situation we would consider adding it but the maintainers will not spend time testing the upgrade path of -dev to -dev. This of course is stated as IMNSHO.
Do you plan to supply a patch for that upgrade path? If not then please change the status as "won't fix" else provide a patch at change the status as "needs review".
Comment #5
dave reid@sl27257: Having two different versions of the same module installed is a recipe for nothing to go right. Remember, you should always be *removing* the sites/all/modules/xmlsitemap folder before copying the new version. There is always a chance that files or folders are moved. If you simply copy without removing the module folder, you may end up with duplicate files, which is likely what happened for you.
Comment #6
sl27257I will try to stay calm and not start a flame war :-)
But we have quite a few modules in the 6.x path were the maintainers have not released a 6-version yet. And now we are talking about a release of 7.x in September. So what you in practice are saying is that the 6.x path is not for common use yet... Well... :-)
Enough said about that!
Have a nice day!
BR
/Thomas
Comment #7
sl27257I do have a second production site were I use the XML-sitemap as well. I will do an upgrade on that also when the above mentioned bug is fixed. Then I will try to figure out exactly what did happen when I upgraded the first site (which also is a production site)!
BR
/Thomas
Comment #8
gdonato commentedHaving very similar problems to the OP. /sitemap.xml is giving a 404 despite uninstalling and reinstalling the module.
updated from 6.x-0.x-dev to 6.x-1.0-beta1.
Is having both versions installed a workaround?
Comment #9
avpadernoNo, it is not. In particular, that is something to absolutely avoid; it just create problems, and it doesn't work at all.
If you are updating from 6.x-0.x-dev, uninstall it, and install the latest version. Don't use the beta1 that has actually a problem.
Comment #10
avpadernoI am changing the category, and setting the report as fixed because it got an answer.
It seems to me that the problem was caused by a not correct installation procedure.
Comment #11
sl27257Please do. I have not updated the second site yet. If the problem persists when I do I will write a new TR.