[CentOS-devel] forums + portal for {lang}.centos.org sites

Thu Sep 25 19:24:12 UTC 2008
Ned Slider <ned at unixmail.co.uk>

Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Ned Slider wrote:
>> Would someone take a quick look at the SMF license to see if it meets  
>> the project's minimum requirements or not:
>> http://www.simplemachines.org/about/license.php
> "Any Distribution of a Modified Package or derivative requires express
> written consent from Simple Machines LLC" turns me off a bit.
> <http://cmsreport.com/node/1777> has some more information about that.
> "Any Distribution of this Package, whether as a Modified Package or not,
> requires express written consent from Simple Machines LLC." doesn't
> really sound better.
>> At least then we can either tick a box or eliminate one possibility  
>> taking a little step closer to a solution :)
> I don't like the license :)

I don't like it either - that's why I raised it. Is it a show stopper 
discounting SMF from further consideration or is it something we can 
still work with (the license) and keep it on the shortlist? No point 
doing a lot of ldap integration work or whatever to only find out down 
the line the license isn't tolerable.

>>> Requirements:
>> <snip>
>>> - Must address the specific requirements raised by the present  
>>> www.centos.org forum users ( Can you please fill this section in ? )
>> This is a task I can do. Where/how would you like the information?
> Why not here in this thread first?

Here is a summary of issues raised by forum users so far:

- Persistent logins (users currently have to re-login every 24h)
- The remember me, keep cookie for 1 year option looks broken (relates 
to point 1 above and is presumably a xoops issue)
- View/jump to first unread post within thread feature
- Remember read/unread posts across multiple PCs/logins (per user, not 
per machine)
- Ability for users to change/edit their registered email address.
- Better management of subscribed threads

- Thank User button/feature
- Quick links feature

I'm guessing this list is fairly final as no new issues have been raised 
for quite a while now in the forum feedback thread. For reference, the 
thread may be found here:


My understanding is that most all modern forums software caters to these 
requirements - users are just asking for the features/usability they are 
accustomed to elsewhere, nothing out of the ordinary, but that is 
missing from the current xoops solution.