SUMo : Keep your software up to date

Fixed. Rather than ignore, i'd suggest "skip>1month"

 

I don't want to see EmsisoftEmergencyKitPortable.exe being flagged anymore. It's only the launcher for the actual scanner.and normally doesn't need to be updated. Same thing for FirefoxPortable.exe launcher from PortableApps.com

 

Then just click "ignore"

 

SUMo - 5.7.1 (Released 2018-07-20)
==================================

https://www.kcsoftwares.com/?sumo

 

I believe that is what I said I was doing and your answer was:
Fixed. Rather than ignore, i'd suggest "skip>1month"

You never answered why the launchers show up in SUMO with a version number they do not even have.

 

Regarding Firefox portable... the launcher should display the correct version... isn't it the case ?

 

Firefox Firefox portableapps launcher is being reported as 52.9.0, but that's not the real version . You don't really need to display the launchers as a different version for portableapps. They all have their own version number. It's the actual app files that need to be displayed correctly.

FirefoxPortable.exe real version is 2.1.2.0 and not 52.9.0
EmsisoftEmergencyKitPortable.exe real version is 2.2.1.0
7-ZipPortable.exe real version is 2.2.1.0
FastCopyPortable.exe real version is 2.2.1.0
.
.
etc.

If you want to display the launchers, why don't you just use their actual version number like 2.2.1.0?

 

My two cents:

I don't think Kyle (or anyone else) wants to display the launchers for PortableApps - displaying info is simply what SUMo does.
SUMo scans the SUMo users systems for applications, and presents the info in the user interface.
Product, company and version number as displayed in the SUMo user interface are as is in file properties of the application files that SUMo finds on SUMo users systems.
If it is terribly annoying to SUMo users if SUMo comes up with the PortableApps launchers, perhaps Kyle can create a rule that prevents showing PortableApps launchers.

In other cases, if SUMo comes up with odd update information, some users in the SUMO user database may have odd files on the system, like unofficial betas, or oddly numbered cracks(!), or files of which the developer messed up version numbering.
In a lot of cases, Kyle can clean up the mess, and he does, but the mess is not Kyle's fault, nor SUMo's.

 

I understand that SUMO displays what it finds, but that is not always the case. If SUMO is taking the information from the file properties, then why are launchers from portableapps not being shown with the actual version of the launcher?

Correcting this just might help reduce the mess and save Kyle some work.

 

For PortableApps launchers, i'm looking for the version of the actual product, not the one from the launchers.... looks like this make much sense. There is a couple of tickets in my bug tracker of these on past SUMo versions.

 

I do not know if you mean the version(s) that SUMo detects on your system, or 'update' versions that SUMo detects on other systems in the SUMO users database.

Versions on other systems in the SUMO users database can be 'odd', as I said, such as unofficial betas, or cracks, or files of which the developer messed up version numbering.

But also versions on your own system can have odd version numbering in file properties, I've seen a couple of cases myself, earlier.
As I said, SUMo reads file properties, if the developer messes up version numbering in file properties, SUMo will display that messed up version number.

I don't know what's the case with PortableApps, but my bet is on either odd info in file properties, or odd files on other systems in the SUMO users database.

 

IMHO I think it just makes more work than sense. If you used the real version you could save yourself always having to update to a new "virtual" version when someone reports it. Just as an example, FastCopyPortable.exe has the wrong version displayed (3.50.0.0), but it shows up as OK, so I assume this stuff is not automated and you would need to change it to 3.51.0.0 to match the current product version when made aware of it. Again, IMHO the other way is more accurate and less problematic.

 

I think Kyle answered it satisfactorily - the version numbers of the launchers are being faked to match the product version.

 

The version numbers of the launchers are being faked??
I'm not sure what you mean. It seems curiouser and curiouser.
Anyhow, if Kyle says there is a couple of tickets in the bug tracker covering the matter, I'm confident Kyle will try to fix it.

 

The file and product version of the launcher FirefoxPortable.exe is v2.1.2.0, SUMo is showing the product version (v61):

 

Exactly !

 

[SUMo] Error Report for Java(TM) Platform SE (64 bits) by Oracle v 8.0.1810.13 - SUMo reports Update available (10.0.2.0)

Both versions are current as far as I know...

 

That is not an error, but expected SUMo behavior, as SUMo does not differentiate separate older and newer series. SUMo will simply report that a newer version is available.
Another example is LibreOffice, of which two series are available, the older 'conservative' series and the new 'early adopter' series. SUMo will report the 'early adopter' updates, even though the 'conservative' series is current as well.

 

What about the 2 Firfox ESR versions? They were/are handled separately.

 

Thanks very much, that is truly interesting.
I don't know why those are handled in a different way than Java and LibreOffice.
I hope that Kyle can explain.

 

SUMo is reporting Appguard version 5.3 is out.

There is no such thing as Appguard v5.3.

5.2.9.1 is the last version.

 

I think you are right there, as I believe v5 development has been discontinued with (stable) v5.2.9.1.

The latest version now is v6.1.0.0703 (AppGuard SOLO) but that is still a beta version.

 

Link to SUMo AppGuard page please ?

 

I dont use the Sumo link to get update, get there on my own.
There is no version 4 or 5 anymore! Just Solo (version 6)!

Another issue Process Lasso.
Sumo reports :
Process Lasso (64 bits) Bitsum Technologies 9.0.0.456 Update available (9.0.0.457)
9.0.0.456 is the latest. I do NOT have betas checked.

 

Fixed, thanks for reporting !