Am Dienstag, 13. Oktober 2015, 16:49:04 schrieb Erich Titl: > Am 13.10.2015 um 16:25 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer: > > Hi Erich; > > ... > > > So it has been stable from 2002 until 2012, and again three years since > > last change. Or it has there has been only one change in 13 years - I > > think this could be called stable. Go back to your backups from 2002 and > > have a look what system you have had that time on your desktop and how > > much changes have been made since then :) > > ;-) > Yes, my previous system was 4.1 , well maybe older than 2012 and ezipupd > was running fine until I upgraded. I was pretty lucky to find the issue > before I got a new IP from my provider. I _believe_ though that many > LEAF systems are just sitting quietly in a corner and are basically > unmaintained (like mine). Mine would not have changed would it not have > been for a field test for upgrade. > > > Well the reason for this change can be called either an improvement or a > > fix for not well written Package in 2002. > > > > Sometime between 2002 and today dyndns, supported by ezipupdate and reason > > for me to have used it, changed their business model to move away from > > free dns services to something else- which bothered me more than a change > > in our Package. > > Right, I recall there was an issue, fortunately I never used dyndns but > zoneedit and they are stil running mostly the same business plan or at > least kept their legacy customers. > > I am wondering if I would have had no issues at all by upgrading step by > step. I probably would have had less at one time.
I also _believe_ that your assumption about "quietly working and almost unmaintained" LEAF boxes is correct, which is a security issue and drawback of providing stable software. I also _believe_, that you might have had less issues at one time if you have had upgraded in smaller steps - or have had a test system to (dual boot) and time to test one of the numerous alpha/beta/rc versions. And it is still my hope that your work on upgrade script will engage users to update more often than we do now, even if we try to release often and therefor to keep changes between releases as small as possible. I also _believe_ , that integration of apkg -u into the upgrade script will be easier to accomplish the then smaller changes and more helpful, than reinvent apkg and configdb. kp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
