Universal Tool Updater

[xchwarze]

Universal Tool Updater is the result of having to deal with keeping the tools I use in my lab up to date.
The idea was to be able to have a universal tool for all the cases that could occur.

You can download it and see the documentation here https://github.com/xchwarze/universal-tool-updater

You can also see an implementation of the same in this other project that I have

[xchwarze]

I took advantage of the Christmas vacations to redo this project

You can find the new fully refactored version here
https://github.com/xchwarze/universal-tool-updater/releases/tag/v2.1.0

[sendersu]

@xchwarze
thanks for you nice tool
do you support updater for the archives that do not have version embedded in it's name,
so the vendor just overwrites the previous one, eg:

https://download.sysinternals.com/files/ProcessMonitor.zip

[xchwarze]

For tools that are not hosted on Github there are two strategies:

1. Regex: You can make use of regex to locate version numbers and download links on websites

2. HTTP Headers: If it is impossible to apply the first method, there is a secondary method that consists of using the "last-modified" header and if the server does not make use of it, "content-length" is used as fallback.

As an example you can see the config file of the updater of my toolkit https://github.com/indetectables-net...ater/tools.ini

In it we can find the example you asked before

[Procmon]
folder = ..\..\toolkit\Monitor\Procmon
url = https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/procmon
update_url = https://download.sysinternals.com/files/ProcessMonitor.zip
from = web
local_version = 3.96
re_version = <h1 [^>]*>Process Monitor v(.*?)</h1>

[vic4key]

@xchwarze Could you release it under the MIT license and GUI support?

MIT License @ https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/

[xchwarze]

Originally Posted by vic4key

@xchwarze Could you release it under the MIT license and GUI support?

MIT License @ https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/

I am moving all my developments to GNU LGPLv3

[vic4key]

I couldn't find the project's license. BTW, how do you think about the MIT license?

[blue_devil]

Originally Posted by vic4key

I couldn't find the project's license. BTW, how do you think about the MIT license?

After reading this article, I 've found licensing my open source stuff in AGPL more appropriate. What do you think?

BTW we can move the licensing topic to another thread!

[vic4key]

Originally Posted by blue_devil

After reading this article, I 've found licensing my open source stuff in AGPL more appropriate. What do you think?

BTW we can move the licensing topic to another thread!

When using software or libraries which under the GNU license, users must disclose their own source code, this requirement could not meet with the non-open source software.

[xchwarze]

I understand that the scope of what is mentioned here https://choosealicense.com/licenses/lgpl-3.0/ is always what you license and nothing more than that.

So to be more clear if someone uses my library in a commercial development only my library and the changes that they make to it would be subject to those rules and not the rest of the development.