[GH-ISSUE #6227] incorrect version display

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:32 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @umrath on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/issues/6227

✅ Have you read and understood the above guidelines?

yes

📜 What is the name of the script you are using?

Immich

📂 What was the exact command used to execute the script?

bash -c "$(curl -fsSL https://git.community-scripts.org/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/raw/branch/main/ct/immich.sh)"

⚙️ What settings are you using?

Default Settings
Advanced Settings

🖥️ Which Linux distribution are you using?

No response

📝 Provide a clear and concise description of the issue.

The webpage displays v0.136.0 (which is indeed the latest Immich release) but the script is hard coded to still install/update to v0.135.3.
Without looking into the source code, there is no reliable way to determine, which version is actually being installed/updated to.
That's unexpected and confusing.

The webpage should display the version the script is actually going to install/update to.

🔄 Steps to reproduce the issue.

Run script, observe v.0.135.3 being updated to.

❌ Paste the full error output (if available).

No error log as the script itself does exactly what it is supposed to do.

🖼️ Additional context (optional).

No response

Originally created by @umrath on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/issues/6227 ### ✅ Have you read and understood the above guidelines? yes ### 📜 What is the name of the script you are using? Immich ### 📂 What was the exact command used to execute the script? bash -c "$(curl -fsSL https://git.community-scripts.org/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/raw/branch/main/ct/immich.sh)" ### ⚙️ What settings are you using? - [ ] Default Settings - [ ] Advanced Settings ### 🖥️ Which Linux distribution are you using? _No response_ ### 📝 Provide a clear and concise description of the issue. The webpage displays v0.136.0 (which is indeed the latest Immich release) but the script is hard coded to still install/update to v0.135.3. Without looking into the source code, there is no reliable way to determine, which version is actually being installed/updated to. That's unexpected and confusing. The webpage should display the version the script is actually going to install/update to. ### 🔄 Steps to reproduce the issue. Run script, observe v.0.135.3 being updated to. ### ❌ Paste the full error output (if available). No error log as the script itself does exactly what it is supposed to do. ### 🖼️ Additional context (optional). _No response_

kerem

2026-02-26 12:48:32 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
bug
label

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:32 +03:00

Author

Owner

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

1.) the issue is created incorrectly
2.) this is defined on the website based on the repo, not what we install - its an crawling from newreleases.io
3.) if you had looked in PR's changelog and issues - you would have seen directly that we have pinned the version for security reasons

What a useless issue, sorry.

https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/issues/6211

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): 1.) the issue is created incorrectly 2.) this is defined on the website based on the repo, not what we install - its an crawling from newreleases.io 3.) if you had looked in PR's changelog and issues - you would have seen directly that we have pinned the version for security reasons What a useless issue, sorry. https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE/issues/6211

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:32 +03:00

Author

Owner

@umrath commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

1.) the issue is created incorrectly 2.) this is defined on the website based on the repo, not what we install 3.) if you had looked in PR's changelog and issues - you would have seen directly that we have pinned the version for security reasons

What a useless issue, sorry.

I fail to see how the issue is created incorrectly. All necessary information to understand the issue has been provided.

How is the user supposed to know which version is actually being installed? Should people really read the code? On the page I fail to find any mentioning of version v0.135.3 being installed.

Even if what you stated is right (I cannot find the mentioned reasoning for the pinning), it doesn't change the fact that the information is inconsistent and thus confusing.

Edit: I did not check the linked #6211 as the installation does not brick. It works.

@umrath commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): > 1.) the issue is created incorrectly 2.) this is defined on the website based on the repo, not what we install 3.) if you had looked in PR's changelog and issues - you would have seen directly that we have pinned the version for security reasons > > What a useless issue, sorry. I fail to see how the issue is created incorrectly. All necessary information to understand the issue has been provided. How is the user supposed to know which version is actually being installed? Should people really read the code? On the page I fail to find any mentioning of version v0.135.3 being installed. Even if what you stated is right (I cannot find the mentioned reasoning for the pinning), it doesn't change the fact that the information is inconsistent and thus confusing. Edit: I did not check the linked #6211 as the installation does not brick. It works.

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:32 +03:00

Author

Owner

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

Then build a crawler that goes through every single one of our scripts and finds the exact version. Thank you, please. Make an PR for this Action and we have an correct crawler. For the newreleases.io crawler we had invest more then 5d.

You have an issue with the website and not with the script, but you create a script issue.

There were 2 active issues + 1 merged PR yesterday with the PIN explanation + 1 merged PR today to reinstall the latest version, I don't know what there is to discuss?

And yes, in the end, Read The Code. Frigate has also been pinned for a long time

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): Then build a crawler that goes through every single one of our scripts and finds the exact version. Thank you, please. Make an PR for this Action and we have an correct crawler. For the newreleases.io crawler we had invest more then 5d. You have an issue with the website and not with the script, but you create a script issue. There were 2 active issues + 1 merged PR yesterday with the PIN explanation + 1 merged PR today to reinstall the latest version, I don't know what there is to discuss? And yes, in the end, Read The Code. Frigate has also been pinned for a long time

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:32 +03:00

Author

Owner

@umrath commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

I never would have received such an insensible comment from tteck. :(

@umrath commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): I never would have received such an insensible comment from tteck. :(

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:32 +03:00

Author

Owner

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

There's nothing insensitive about that, it's a very simple explanation. It was an emergency pin to avoid bricking everything until the fix was there. And everything could be found in the repo.

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): There's nothing insensitive about that, it's a very simple explanation. It was an emergency pin to avoid bricking everything until the fix was there. And everything could be found in the repo.

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:32 +03:00

Author

Owner

@umrath commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

There's nothing insensitive about that, it's a very simple explanation. It was an emergency pin to avoid bricking everything until the fix was there. And everything could be found in the repo.

"What a useless issue, sorry." is surely not what I would describe as a comment that shows respect.
And essentially "read the code" is also not exactly what one would like to get as an answer.

It is a fact that the information on the webpage and the functionality of the script are inconsistent.
At the bare minimum, ackknowledging this would be the right thing to to.
I didn't expect an urgent fix or any kind of immediate activity.

It would have been absolutely sufficient to simply state:
"Yes, we know. It's a problem caused by pinning the version because of a bug discovered in #6211. We currently have no plans to fix this."

Much less effort, much more helpful and a lot less discrespectful.

@umrath commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): > There's nothing insensitive about that, it's a very simple explanation. It was an emergency pin to avoid bricking everything until the fix was there. And everything could be found in the repo. "What a useless issue, sorry." is surely not what I would describe as a comment that shows respect. And essentially "read the code" is also not exactly what one would like to get as an answer. It is a fact that the information on the webpage and the functionality of the script are inconsistent. At the bare minimum, ackknowledging this would be the right thing to to. I didn't expect an urgent fix or any kind of immediate activity. It would have been absolutely sufficient to simply state: "Yes, we know. It's a problem caused by pinning the version because of a bug discovered in #6211. We currently have no plans to fix this." Much less effort, much more helpful and a lot less discrespectful.

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:32 +03:00

Author

Owner

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

We just don't feel like discussing it anymore. We originally built this function on the website specifically to show users which version the underlying tool is in, not the script.

If there is any confusion, we will remove the function completely from the website - then there will be no more information anywhere.

And yes, tteck also said to leave the code beforehand.

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): We just don't feel like discussing it anymore. We originally built this function on the website specifically to show users which version the underlying tool is in, not the script. If there is any confusion, we will remove the function completely from the website - then there will be no more information anywhere. And yes, tteck also said to leave the code beforehand.

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:32 +03:00

Author

Owner

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

But that's also typical. Repo not set to Star, create issues, complain instead of simply going through the issues. As a precondition, it says when opening an issue:

Search first: before submitting, check if the problem has already been reported or solved in closed issues. If this is the case, comment on this issue instead of creating a new one.
Alternatively, you can also search for relevant information in the discussions in the “Announcement” or “Guide” categories.
[...]
📜 Read the script: Familiarize yourself with the content of the script and its purpose. This will help you to better understand the problem and provide relevant information.

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): But that's also typical. Repo not set to Star, create issues, complain instead of simply going through the issues. As a precondition, it says when opening an issue: ```md Search first: before submitting, check if the problem has already been reported or solved in closed issues. If this is the case, comment on this issue instead of creating a new one. Alternatively, you can also search for relevant information in the discussions in the “Announcement” or “Guide” categories. [...] 📜 Read the script: Familiarize yourself with the content of the script and its purpose. This will help you to better understand the problem and provide relevant information. ```

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:33 +03:00

Author

Owner

@umrath commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

We just don't feel like discussing it anymore. We originally built this function on the website specifically to show users which version the underlying tool is in, not the script.

If there is any confusion, we will remove the function completely from the website - then there will be no more information anywhere.

And yes, tteck also said to leave the code beforehand.

Just add this information to the webpage and it's clear.
A simple: "latest upstream version" would be sufficient.
But honestly: What's the benefit of displaying a version on the webpage and then install a different one?

So, yes. Removing the information would actually be reasonable.

And I read the code before installing. I even read it before updating. That's how I spotted the difference (as outlined in the initial report.)

@umrath commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): > We just don't feel like discussing it anymore. We originally built this function on the website specifically to show users which version the underlying tool is in, not the script. > > If there is any confusion, we will remove the function completely from the website - then there will be no more information anywhere. > > And yes, tteck also said to leave the code beforehand. Just add this information to the webpage and it's clear. A simple: "latest upstream version" would be sufficient. But honestly: What's the benefit of displaying a version on the webpage and then install a different one? So, yes. Removing the information would actually be reasonable. And I read the code before installing. I even read it before updating. That's how I spotted the difference (as outlined in the initial report.)

kerem commented

2026-02-26 12:48:33 +03:00

Author

Owner

@umrath commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025):

But that's also typical. Repo not set to Star, create issues, complain instead of simply going through the issues. As a precondition, it says when opening an issue:

Search first: before submitting, check if the problem has already been reported or solved in closed issues. If this is the case, comment on this issue instead of creating a new one.
Alternatively, you can also search for relevant information in the discussions in the “Announcement” or “Guide” categories.
[...]
📜 Read the script: Familiarize yourself with the content of the script and its purpose. This will help you to better understand the problem and provide relevant information.

I did read.
I could not find any issue about the version of the script being inconsistent with the version on the webpage.

Issue #6211 might be related but is not the same.

(And I'm sorry. I couldn't find any information that requires me to star the repo before I'm allowed to raise an issue.)

@umrath commented on GitHub (Jul 25, 2025): > But that's also typical. Repo not set to Star, create issues, complain instead of simply going through the issues. As a precondition, it says when opening an issue: > > Search first: before submitting, check if the problem has already been reported or solved in closed issues. If this is the case, comment on this issue instead of creating a new one. > Alternatively, you can also search for relevant information in the discussions in the “Announcement” or “Guide” categories. > [...] > 📜 Read the script: Familiarize yourself with the content of the script and its purpose. This will help you to better understand the problem and provide relevant information. I did read. I could not find any issue about the version of the script being inconsistent with the version on the webpage. Issue #6211 might be related but is not the same. (And I'm sorry. I couldn't find any information that requires me to star the repo before I'm allowed to raise an issue.)

kerem referenced this issue

2026-02-26 13:32:28 +03:00

[PR #1335] [MERGED] fix(ci): formatting event & chmod +x #3117

Rows
Columns

[GH-ISSUE #6227] incorrect version display #1335

✅ Have you read and understood the above guidelines?

📜 What is the name of the script you are using?

📂 What was the exact command used to execute the script?

⚙️ What settings are you using?

🖥️ Which Linux distribution are you using?

📝 Provide a clear and concise description of the issue.

🔄 Steps to reproduce the issue.

❌ Paste the full error output (if available).

🖼️ Additional context (optional).