[ralphy]

Jerry,

It looks like the changes I made to fix liteupgrade were reverted right after commit https://github.com/linuxlite/liteupgrade...539dbb73dd

Have you tested these changes? I didn't spend much time reviewing the code but I'm under the impression that it is broken (at first glance). I did test upgrading from 3.0 to 3.2 up until my commit  https://github.com/linuxlite/liteupgrade...df1cc90e82. I'm just asking to make sure we are not overwriting each others work as it happened before.

[valtam]

Yeah sorry, that was my bad and unintentional. Testing has gone well so far. I'll continue to write the Upgrade code myself to avoid any future conflict. I have it set up in such a way that making additions to it is very simple.

[ralphy]

Ok cool  :)

[valtam]

I do appreciate the work you put into this.

[ralphy]

[member=2]Jerry[/member]

In the last commit I had made https://github.com/linuxlite/liteupgrade...367f228000 I moved few things around because it was really necessary. We once fixed /etc/skel folder permissions and that was done because there were small glitches with multi-users sessions and access from what I recall, besides, the permissions should've remained root:root in for system files. I looked at 3.4 and permissions were also reverted. I'm under the impression that liteupgrade is broken and I'm trying to bring attention to this cos' the release date is getting closer. Be assured that I'm not making any changes; I want to bring it to your attention only (and I wish I'm completely wrong too).

See https://www.linuxliteos.com/forums/devel.../#msg28593

Looking at LL32, I do see it has the correct permissions so the multi-sessions user issue was corrected from what I recall because of that.



But LL34 does not have he correct permissions and the backup or a file copy and something else will fail somewhere, that's why I made the changes in my commit at the time and the reason why we corrected permissions all over.



Anyways, I had to mention it to take it off my chest. I'm relieved now :)

Cheers!

[valtam]

Thanks for pointing this out Ralphy, I'll look into these permissions.

[valtam]

I've got a solid next few days at work. Next Wednesday I intend to spend all my spare time up until release day, coding, fixing, testing and producing. Cheers.

[valtam]

We once fixed /etc/skel folder permissions...

When and where was this addressed?

I don't find the LL Upgrade code (GH) currently broken. I have successfully upgraded from 3.0 and 3.2 without issues.
If you have time, can you please test the current GH code and then elaborate on any issues that can or will only cause problems. Cheers :)

[ralphy]

[quote author=ralphy link=topic=3961.msg30283#msg30283 date=1490276764]
We once fixed /etc/skel folder permissions...

When and where was this addressed?

I don't find the LL Upgrade code (GH) currently broken. I have successfully upgraded from 3.0 and 3.2 without issues.
If you have time, can you please test the current GH code and then elaborate on any issues that can or will only cause problems. Cheers :)
[/quote]

Did you install updates after updating to 3.2 and before upgrading to 3.4? I was on 3.2 that we corrected the /ect/skel permissions and out of the top of my head, when I committed the fixes at that time was because liteupgrade tried to copy things for which i had not permissions in the non admin part of the script. Also, when upgrading, the script didn't consider more than one account (the admin) I believe and that was also corrected. I never looked back into it Jerry, so I really don' remember the details, sorry. But I'm convinced that what I'm saying is pretty accurate otherwise I wouldn't have spent a couple days on the code and that I remember clearly :P

[valtam]

Let's leave it for now and perhaps revisit in the 3.6 dev cycle. Cheers.