Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

iTerm2 recipe not downloading latest 3.3.10; stuck on 3.3.9 #147

Open
fseesink opened this issue May 20, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

iTerm2 recipe not downloading latest 3.3.10; stuck on 3.3.9 #147

fseesink opened this issue May 20, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@fseesink
Copy link

iTerm2 v3.0.10 came out almost a week ago, but recipe has yet to pull it down.

Suspect possibly it doesn't handle the ".10" properly when comparing? That is, maybe it thinks "3.3.9" is newer than "3.3.1..." if it's doing a string comparison?

@hjuutilainen
Copy link
Contributor

The recipe uses the app's sparkle feed (https://iterm2.com/appcasts/final.xml) to get the latest version. Just checked the feed content and it seems to still have 3.3.9 as latest. The latest iTerm version has a new feed url, https://iterm2.com/appcasts/final_new.xml, but it is identical to the one the recipe is using.

iTerm authors might be delaying the release availability in their in-app updates.

@fseesink
Copy link
Author

Ahh, ok.

Thanks, by the way, for the recipe.

@flammable
Copy link
Member

I'm noticing the same thing - I'm running 3.3.12, which is the latest that's listed at https://iterm2.com/appcasts/final.xml. However, the app is prompting me to update to 3.4.1, which is only listed in the newer feed, https://iterm2.com/appcasts/final_new.xml.

I'm guessing the developer switched over to the newer feed, but possibly left the old one intact for users running the older versions (though, a URL redirect would probably handle that better).

Does it make sense to switch the feed in the recipe? Also, it looks like 3.4.1 requires macOS 10.14, whereas 3.3.12 required macOS 10.12.

@kevinmcox
Copy link
Member

This is fixed now with #156. (I neglected to check the issues before filing the PR.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants