Is it a problem for extension to change from tar.gz to zip ? For simplicity reasons, I’d like if Linux is not a special case requiring different format from Windows and OSX. But if unzip is not common then tar.gz should be re-introduced.
As for versioning. The first 3 parts indicate date of release. The last part is internal build number (useful if there is more than 1 release within a day). Version number is “calculated” automatically for simplicity reasons.
No problem if the change of repository is permanent. Another thing is the change from tar.gz to zip as unzip is not included in Docker so unfortunately the ADD command cannot extract zip files:
Please re-introduce tar.gz is better for Linux / Unix. Not necessarily because it produces smaller files (it compresses the archive not individual files) but it is also much more consistent to ensure that especially “execute” permissions are fully retained, ensuring a proper match with the original. It is also true that most server installs of Linux / Unix distributions as mostly used on servers rather than desktops can not unzip before installing the relevant app but can work with tar.gz out of the box. As we talk about Manager Server edition for Linux it would be better to have tar.gz files.
Issue posted here is resolved by @Mark in post 7 below.
Redundant post but kept for thread logic:
"@Lubos first of all thank you for changing to tar.gz. Unfortunately you introduced a serious problem in the download address. Previously we could just run the script without having to enter a new URL, i.e. we could use:
Can you please find a way so we do not have to manually find the link on github and update the script each time we want to update. Thank you in advance."
