Missing Override Content?

[bi11i]

I'm having a hell of a time figuring out what's causing my missing overrides.

I've installed a fresh copy (several times) of v1.3.0.2 and while my html_includes pages function just fine, I'm unable to display the contents of my conditions.php or privacy.php language files (among others.) I've selected the correct language and have toyed with 'Admin -> Config -> Define Pages Status' to no avail. I've reuploaded the files using several different methods and have even tried redownloading the whole sw package.

What's the trick to turn these overrides on? I've just gone ahead with another totally clean install - any ideas of what I'm missing?

Thx....

[24#Karat_fan]

this function was removed
all of the html defined pages such as privacy and conditions etc are all done through the defines pages mamager only.
I was told it was confusing people to have both,

[bi11i]

this function was removed
all of the html defined pages such as privacy and conditions etc are all done through the defines pages mamager only.
I was told it was confusing people to have both,

So why are they there? Are there many other pages like this?

Also, if I want to include a ' . STORE_NAME . ' or ' . STORE_OWNER_EMAIL_ADDRESS . ' variable here, how would I do this? Just search and replace, I'm assuming?

[imac]

Yes indeed. Why are they still there? I wasted a couple of hours trying to get them to display until I discovered this thread.

To translate ' . STORE_NAME . ' etc. from the old language defines, replacing with <?php echo STORE_NAME ?> worked for me.

[TheOracle]

So why are they there? Are there many other pages like this?

Between each upgrade releases, detailled instructions are mentionned about - which files needs to be replaced or not from the docs's upgrade instructions. It might be possible you might of missed that / or simply one of them from the latest release.

[imac]

Between each upgrade releases, detailled instructions are mentionned about - which files needs to be replaced or not

True, but the whatsnew docs cover an awful lot of ground. If there is a note about deprecating the language defines then certainly 2 of us haven't found it yet - suggesting it doesn' t stand out much from the crowd.

But what I'm really curious to know is: if the language defines have been deprecated in favour of html_includes - to avoid confusion - then why wouldn't it also be a good idea to delete these redundant files from the virgin 1.3.0 series distro - also to avoid confusion?

[TheOracle]

But what I'm really curious to know is: if the language defines have been deprecated in favour of html_includes - to avoid confusion - then why wouldn't it also be a good idea to delete these redundant files from the virgin 1.3.0 series distro - also to avoid confusion?

To avoid upgrade issues.

[imac]

To avoid upgrade issues.

I must be having one of those days because I don't get that at all. What am I missing here? When I'm upgrading, I start off by comparing the new files with the old. If a file in the new version is unchanged then I assume it hasn't been changed and is performing exactly the same function as in previous versions. If redundant files were to be deleted from the new version, then wouldn't this help avoid upgrade issues by giving more of a clue that the functions of those files had been changed?

[DrByte]

<!-- deprecated - to use uncomment this section
<?php if (TEXT_MAIN) { ?>
<div id="" class="content"><?php echo TEXT_MAIN; ?></div>
<?php } ?>-->

<!-- deprecated - to use uncomment this section
<?php if (TEXT_INFORMATION) { ?>
<div id="" class="content"><?php echo TEXT_INFORMATION; ?></div>
<?php } ?>-->

If you wish to continue using the older method, you are welcome to uncomment these blocks for your site.

Apparently we missed stating anything about this in the docs. Sorry.

[imac]

If you wish to continue using the older method, you are welcome to uncomment these blocks for your site.
Apparently we missed stating anything about this in the docs. Sorry.

Cheers Doc. Much appreciated