From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Fischer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Incorrect naming convention used on the Core Update 170 download file. Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:28:15 +0200 Message-ID: <511781b6-6fcd-501c-3829-b0b7915d4833@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4526484894851681926==" List-Id: --===============4526484894851681926== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Confirmed. Somehow the name of the ISO has changed. But - correct me if I'm wrong! - the naming of the ISO file takes place in '/usr/local/bin/backupiso': Current is: ... ISO=3D"ipfire-$IPFVER.$arch-full-core$COREVER.iso" ... IMHO it could be sufficient to change this to: ... ISO=3D"ipfire-$IPFVER-core$CORVER-$arch.iso" ... I haven't searched for other occurences yet, but I think that could be the culprit... jm2c Matthias On 16.09.2022 16:24, Adolf Belka wrote: > Hi All, >=20 > On 16/09/2022 16:02, Adolf Belka wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> On the forum there have been a couple of people who tried creating an iso = backup and it only showed a 0 byte file. >> >> >> I have confirmed with my vm testbed. The same thing works fine for CU169. >> >> >> After looking through code I have found that Core Update 169=C2=A0 and 170= file name order is different. The arch is placed in a different location >> >> >> https://downloads.ipfire.org/releases/ipfire-2.x/2.27-core169/ipfire-2.27.= x86_64-full-core169.iso >> >> https://downloads.ipfire.org/releases/ipfire-2.x/2.27-core170/ipfire-2.27-= core170-x86_64.iso >> >> This means that backup.pl is not able to find the Core Update 170 iso from= the downloads site. >> > If the change in iso file naming convention was intended then backup.pl als= o needs to be modified for the iso naming convention. >=20 >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Adolf. >=20 >> >> Regards, >> >> Adolf. >> >> --===============4526484894851681926==--