On 18.09.2022 11:23, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hello, > > This fucking feature will kill me some time. Or I will kill it. +1 I would testify as a witness for you... Three years probation and then you would be out again. ;-) > Matthias, are you going to submit this change as a patch? Patch is on the road - see below: https://git.ipfire.org/?p=ipfire-2.x.git;a=commit;h=fbd0608c2cb5372fff7857065ec7e605b1bf9cf7 > -Michael > >> On 17 Sep 2022, at 11:28, Matthias Fischer wrote: >> >> 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="ipfire-$IPFVER.$arch-full-core$COREVER.iso" >> ... >> >> IMHO it could be sufficient to change this to: >> ... >> ISO="ipfire-$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, >>> >>> 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 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 also needs to be modified for the iso naming convention. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Adolf. >>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Adolf. >>>> >>>> >> >