Jump to content
linuxserver.io

[Support] Linuxserver.io - Unifi

897 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

Depends what version you came from you can run :unstable which will grab the 5.9.x release

Share this post


Link to post

i was on 5.9.29 but i see stable 5.10.12 is already released !!!

What do i do now?

Share this post


Link to post
i was on 5.9.29 but i see stable 5.10.12 is already released !!!
What do i do now?
Read the posts further up regarding 5.10.12

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post

i so i need to change to unstable

Change Repository to linuxserver/unifi:unstable if you want to run 5.9 series.

Share this post


Link to post

mm used my backup, everything ok but now its not adopting my devices

any idea?

Share this post


Link to post

Changed it to host instead of bridge and now its adopting

 

Still, even the beta doesnt have the 5.10.12????

Why not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, skank said:

its fixed !

lol

I deleted everything

App was gone but there was still something on cache, deleted that too and reinstalled now it works

anyway

 

the run command attached

Command.JPG

 

Thnaks, I figured out that a day later...

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CHBMB said:

Read the posts further up regarding 5.10.12

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk
 

Have you read some of them?

Previous criteria was that latest releases are available in UBNT's download page before they appear in Unstable tag.

UBNT has had 5.10.12 available on it's download page for a few days now: https://www.ui.com/download/unifi

The Unstable tag had an update 2 days ago (more than a day after 5.10.12 was available from the download page) yet its still stuck on 5.9.x.

 

So... 

Edited by jedimstr

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, jedimstr said:

Have you read some of them?

Previous criteria was that latest releases are available in UBNT's download page before they appear in Unstable tag.

UBNT has had 5.10.12 available on it's download page for a few days now: https://www.ui.com/download/unifi

The Unstable tag had an update 2 days ago (more than a day after 5.10.12 was available from the download page) yet its still stuck on 5.9.x.

 

So... 

Yes, and that's what I'm referring to.  It's not stuck on 5.9.x but you all need to start bearing in mind that we don't live to purely exist every repository as soon as software is updated.  EVERYTHING we do is in our limited spare time, we all have families, jobs and other commitments.  For some reason Unifi always generates a hullaballoo everytime they update and we don't immediately drop everything to update a container.  If  your wifi is working, what's the rush?

 

Of course if anyone wants to volunteer their free time to help out and maintain stuff then by all means hop into our Discord and volunteer your services.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

We are migrating everything to a new pipeline system for our builds and Unifi hasn't been tackled yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, CHBMB said:

We are migrating everything to a new pipeline system for our builds and Unifi hasn't been tackled yet.

Understood and much appreciated on the family/lives front.  Wish I had time to contribute as well.

 

That said, previous excuse of "it has to be on the download page" rarely applies anymore, so its probably best not to use it and just say "we'll get to it when we get to it".  And yes, it is stuck on 5.9.x on unstable at the moment so don't know why you wouldn't think that.  If you create a new container and point it to the unstable tag, you don't get 5.10.x so yes, stuck meaning it's still on previous version release is valid.

 

Side request (and probably can't be tackled for awhile so I guess more of a wishlist item): since naming conventions count to some of us for tags, and fully understanding previous issues leading to your team keeping the latest "stable" releases from Ubiquiti as "unstable" tags because of their software f' ups.  Can we have something like this instead?

 

Long Term Release: /latest

Latest UBNT deemed stable release: /ubntstablerelease

Latest UBNT beta release: /beta

 

That way default is always longterm and more likely to be stable.

This also avoids calling something "unstable" when that particular beta or "stable" release may actually be really stable. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, CHBMB said:

... you all need to start bearing in mind that we don't live to purely exist every repository as soon as software is updated.  EVERYTHING we do is in our limited spare time, we all have families, jobs and other commitments.  

Also... if you want to claim that, then don't have this on your website's main motto:

"We make and maintain container images for the community."

Because if you claim that, then yes, Linuxserver.io DOES purely exist to keep every repository software updated.  That's the point.. If not why use Linuxserver.io in the first place.  I love you guys for keeping one place where to have reliable repo sources, but to claim that it's not why you're here is disingenuous at best.

Edited by jedimstr

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, jedimstr said:

Also... if you want to claim that, then don't have this on your website's main motto:

"We make and maintain container images for the community."

Because if you claim that, then yes, Linuxserver.io DOES purely exist to keep every repository software updated.  That's the point.. If not why use Linuxserver.io in the first place.  I love you guys for keeping one place where to have reliable repo sources, but to claim that it's not why you're here is disingenuous at best.

We do make and maintain container images, but as people we don't exist purely to do so at the drop of a hat, now you claim you don't have enough free time to help but then give me this shit.  I work well in excess of full time, have a wife and a daughter, am doing professional exams.  Still manage to dedicate what I can here. 

 

It's not a case of I don't have enough free time, what you're actually saying is "I'm not willing to donate any of the free time I have"

 

So get off your high horse and wind it in.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, jedimstr said:

Also... if you want to claim that, then don't have this on your website's main motto:

"We make and maintain container images for the community."

Because if you claim that, then yes, Linuxserver.io DOES purely exist to keep every repository software updated.  That's the point.. If not why use Linuxserver.io in the first place.  I love you guys for keeping one place where to have reliable repo sources, but to claim that it's not why you're here is disingenuous at best.

It’s time to back off and thank them for what they do for us!!!!

This is starting to get ridiculous if don’t like the way things are right now roll your own….

CHBMB I just wanted to say thanks for doing your best at keeping this up to date. Your efforts are greatly applicated.

Edited by dolivas27
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, dolivas27 said:

It’s time to back off and thank them for what they do for us!!!!

This is starting to get ridiculous if don’t like the way things are right not roll your own….

CHBMB I just wanted to say thanks for doing your best at keeping this up to date. Your efforts are greatly applicated.

Thank you very much for your kind words.  People like @jedimstr make me wonder why I bother at all, whilst comments like this remind me.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, CHBMB said:

We do make and maintain container images, but as people we don't exist purely to do so at the drop of a hat, now you claim you don't have enough free time to help but then give me this shit.  I work well in excess of full time, have a wife and a daughter, am doing professional exams.  Still manage to dedicate what I can here. 

 

It's not a case of I don't have enough free time, what you're actually saying is "I'm not willing to donate any of the free time I have"

 

So get off your high horse and wind it in.

Fair enough, I wasn't proposing to do things at the drop of a hat.

 

I was proposing that if the source of the images were posted as has been deemed as the previous requirement for updating the unstable tag, then the pipeline should have picked up that version on the weekly update, but didn't, then something is wrong.

 

It's not a personal attack against you, so don't take it as such.  My response to yours was because your response went against what even LinuxServer.io's site says.

 

As for the importance of this release... 5.10.12 is actually very important from a security perspective due to an open known exploits in the wild.  Lots of us really do need this version to mitigate possible attacks/scans that are occuring: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Updates-Blog/UniFi-Network-Controller-5-10-12-Stable-has-been-released/ba-p/2665341

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CHBMB said:

Thank you very much for your kind words.  People like @jedimstr make me wonder why I bother at all, whilst comments like this remind me.

Ya I fully understand that and have seen it before PLEASE don’t stop because of a few that have no patience.

Thanks again…..👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, jedimstr said:

It's not a personal attack against you, so don't take it as such.  My response to yours was because your response went against what even LinuxServer.io's site says. 

"We make and maintain container images for the community."

 

Where does that say we promise updates immediately?

3 minutes ago, jedimstr said:

As for the importance of this release... 5.10.12 is actually very important from a security perspective due to an open known exploits in the wild.  Lots of us really do need this version to mitigate possible attacks/scans that are occuring: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Updates-Blog/UniFi-Network-Controller-5-10-12-Stable-has-been-released/ba-p/2665341

If you're running critical network infrastructure that demands 0 day patching, then you should be looking at maintaining your own software or contracting out to someone who will do it for you.  Or get involved and help maintain it, rather than rely on other people volunteering their free time to do it for you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

When I woke up to ~50 emails from replies to this topic, I knew exactly what had happened, people complaining about the version again. 

 

While I remain mostly silent with the exception of troubleshooting in these threads, I wanted to drop in and say thanks again before I turn off the "notify me of replies" button this time :)

 

The LS.IO team makes the vast majority of containers myself, close friends, and surely countless others who are on unRAID use on a daily basis, day in and day out. I don't understand the insane need for the latest version of UniFi all the damn time. You'd think these people would just get a cloud controller and call it a day. 

 

I'm happy to have one server here, running containers to control everything I need, UniFi included, even if it is three days out of date. :gasp: 

 

Again, thanks @CHBMB to you and the rest of the LSIO team for continuing to put up with the few entitled users here, you make unRAID and the docker community a better place. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CHBMB said:

"We make and maintain container images for the community."

 

Where does that say we promise updates immediately?

If you're running critical network infrastructure that demands 0 day patching, then you should be looking at maintaining your own software or contracting out to someone who will do it for you.  Or get involved and help maintain it, rather than rely on other people volunteering their free time to do it for you.

I'm sorry if I've been ticking you off.  That's definitely NOT my intention.

 

But I want to make clear that previous criteria claimed for keeping this particular repo up to date have been met days before the weekly update cycle, but that weekly cycle didn't pick up this update on the unstable tag.  So lets keep this to the technical reasons why this was, not on a personal level. If there's some other reason fine.  I'm just calling out that something broke here.

 

Also the reasoning of why to choose LinuxServer.io's repos versus others, is because they have been reliable in pretty much every other repo.

Edited by jedimstr

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, jedimstr said:

I'm sorry if I've been ticking you off.  That's definitely NOT my intention.

 

But I want to make clear that previous criteria claimed for keeping this particular repo up to date have been met days before the weekly update cycle, but that weekly cycle didn't pick up this update on the unstable tag.  So lets keep this to the technical reasons why this was, not on a personal level.

 

Also the reasoning of why to choose LinuxServer.io's repos versus others, is because they have been reliable in pretty much every other repo.

It didn't get picked up because the versions are manually set in the dockerfile.

https://github.com/linuxserver/docker-unifi/blob/unstable/Dockerfile#L10

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, jedimstr said:

I'm sorry if I've been ticking you off.  That's definitely NOT my intention.

 

But I want to make clear that previous criteria claimed for keeping this particular repo up to date have been met days before the weekly update cycle, but that weekly cycle didn't pick up this update on the unstable tag.  So lets keep this to the technical reasons why this was, not on a personal level.

 

Also the reasoning of why to choose LinuxServer.io's repos versus others, is because they have been reliable in pretty much every other repo.

Because it needs a manual change of the version, and if we do that then the whole branch becomes v5.10

 

The whole Unifi versioning is a shit show and we intend to address this with the pipeline logic.

 

As it stands, there is nothing stopping someone from pulling the source code, changing the Dockerfile and building locally.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, jedimstr said:

"We make and maintain container images for the community."

Because if you claim that, then yes, Linuxserver.io DOES purely exist to keep every repository software updated.  That's the point..

You're literally missing the point.

 

It just says we maintain images. Nothing about versions. Even if we maintain a working image that contains a version 5 years old, it satisfies the above criteria as long as it still works.

 

Let me make one thing clear. Lsio is a group of volunteers who got invited to become team members based on their contributions or commitment (with the exception of the original founders). We are not elected public officials. We owe nothing to you. We do not serve at your pleasure. I serve at my pleasure. I do what I want.

 

With that said, we are nice people and we try to give back to the community. Do not confuse our good will with any false sense of obligation.

 

As an FYI, the constant badgering of unify users on multiple forums, discord, Reddit, GitHub and private messages every time there is a new version pisses me off so much that I have 0 interest in touching the unifi repo for any reason even though I myself am a user of that image.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, aptalca said:

You're literally missing the point.

 

It just says we maintain images. Nothing about versions. Even if we maintain a working image that contains a version 5 years old, it satisfies the above criteria as long as it still works.

 

Let me make one thing clear. Lsio is a group of volunteers who got invited to become team members based on their contributions or commitment (with the exception of the original founders). We are not elected public officials. We owe nothing to you. We do not serve at your pleasure. I serve at my pleasure. I do what I want.

 

With that said, we are nice people and we try to give back to the community. Do not confuse our good will with any false sense of obligation.

 

As an FYI, the constant badgering of unify users on multiple forums, discord, Reddit, GitHub and private messages every time there is a new version pisses me off so much that I have 0 interest in touching the unifi repo for any reason even though I myself am a user of that image.

Look, I'm sorry if I came off in a bad way and really don't want to badger.

 

But the criteria mentioned in the past on why things aren't updating "not until it shows up on their download page" occurred and things still weren't updated.  So if that's no longer the case, then you guys should stop saying it.  Nice and easy, just don't say it.  Keep a 5 year old version, fine.  Don't say you'll update when their software page is updated.  That's no longer a valid excuse.

 

You should also maybe think about rewording this then:

 

"Our build pipeline is a publicly accessible Jenkinsserver.

This pipeline is triggered on a weekly basis, ensuring all of our users are kept up-to-date with latest application features and security fixes from upstream."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, jedimstr said:

Look, I'm sorry if I came off in a bad way and really don't want to badger.

 

But the criteria mentioned in the past on why things aren't updating "not until it shows up on their download page" occurred and things still weren't updated.  So if that's no longer the case, then you guys should stop saying it.  Nice and easy, just don't say it.  Keep a 5 year old version, fine.  Don't say you'll update when their software page is updated.  That's no longer a valid excuse.

 

You should also maybe think about rewording this then:

 

"Our build pipeline is a publicly accessible Jenkinsserver.

This pipeline is triggered on a weekly basis, ensuring all of our users are kept up-to-date with latest application features and security fixes from upstream."

 

 

I'm not dignifying you with any further responses.   You're being pedantic and I can't decide if that's by choice or stupidity.  It's been out what 4 days?!

 

Buy yourself a Unifi cloud controller I beg of you or pull our source code and build it your damn self. 

Edited by CHBMB

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now