I could show you the content of the actual convo but for now i won't, not all you see here is factual.
You asked if the source code would become public again and you were offered the code and got permission to use the code under NDA as long as you don't share the code but you declined to get it because you didn't want the responsibility of keeping the code private. And the devs couldn't promise that it will keep working after they would have to change it because of new functionality requirements arrises. You used some code you found and did implement the new features and uploaded the updated app with permission of the devs.
sure, because I also distribute a local version I don't want any conflict of interest because of that, and I still prefer the code to be open source for everyone this is fine, I already said that this was only a one-time update just because I wanted to get a fully functional newbuild.php page I don't know if it's just a language barrier, I just tried to make everything right as much as I could
Some barrier probably, dunno if it can be considered language related, I just did a somewhat shortened factual report, that's all.
Please, stop. That's not what I wanted to start. The end result is just, that, in order to get a fully working copy, one would have to get it under NDA by oneself and skip the "public distribution" part.
There is no way to release UUPdump App (Local Server) without sharing the source code. The website code is the source code itself. I agree with Paul that to share the code it should be made openly available. But also, in the part that is made available openly, there is the possibility of using the old code. And even though the code is old, it was no longer the same as what was previously on the website. It already had adaptations for use in local mode. I think the App format could be continued, after all it requires few modifications in moments close to MS releases and the addition of new menu options like 24H2, so renaming 23H2 beta to 24H2 beta should be the next step and so on.
Note for Windows 7 UUPDump app users, you need to continue using the PHP and Apache directories from the previous r2 release, the r3 ones don't run under Win7.
Apache basically works, but throws errors when loading the PHP libraries. Using the directories from .2 works fine, so, maybe these should stay available.
At the root of the 26100.268 (24H2) created Enterprise iso is a file named "_chunk_data"; whait is this? Garbage?
UUPDump app doesn't retrieve and list the Server 2025 26100.1 and AzureStack HCI 24H2 26100.1 builds. What do I have to change so that they are detected? Note: Have already downloaded from the site but would prefer the app detecting them, too. Note 2: The app detects LCUs for the 26100 builds already, but unable to build an ISO from that.
Referring to the detection script (menu 2 - 1). Despite running multiple times, it didn't pick up the new builds. Could it be that having already higher LCU builds in the database prevented it from detecting the (obviously older) base build somehow? About the New Build page, I just learned that I have to check "Return the specific build only" for it to be detected, so, my assumption about the higher LCUs blocking it might be true.
That build is not the normal one, it's old base build and they didn't released it with any CU yet The script is asking WU for updates for the base build itself, but nothing was released yet, except the CU entries It's not logical to modify the script for that two old base builds It should work like 26100+thisonly build instead of just 26100, but it's not needed there They should release full build with CU on patch Tuesday anyway
The problem in this case is just that for servers, you cannot construct an ISO from the CU entries (as they miss language packs). For clients, you just select any deltabuild and uncheck integration of updates. But yeah, might resolve itself when the first "full" deltabuild entry appears. On the positive side, I learned how to use the New build page properly, so, that's a plus.