for the sake of argument...

[Opus]

...let's say you have had your Kindle for over a year and NEVER turned on whispernet and your Kindle is at an old firmware.

Why does Amazon not have the old .bin files available for download?

does anyone know what the inclusive updates are (if any) and where I could download old bin files for the US version of the K2, I found plently of K2i files but not US wireless, anyone know where I could grab the 2.3 series of .bin files specifically??

I had a 2.3.3 but can not find it, I just want to upgrade to 2.5 and be done, unless a future update can make my bed, I will NEVER deal with Amazon support again if I can complete the upgrade to 2.5 finally.

In closing, does anyone have links to K2 US old bin files? thank you.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by Opus

Why does Amazon not have the old .bin files available for download?

I'd imagine it is because they only want to support one version (as much as possible) to make things simpler for their CS folks.

[NogDog]

Do we know for a fact that 2.5.2 cannot be applied to versions older than 2.3.x? At approx. 13MB, I had sort of assumed that the 2.5.2 download was a full patch file, not an incremental upgrade.

[Opus]

Hello,

I would like to thank Clarknova for making me a bin file that replaced the corrupt libtopaz.so file on my K2 US. You Rock!

this allowed me to upgrade from 2.0.3 to 2.3 and FINALLY to 2.5.2!

it would seem that 2.5.2 is not totally inclusive unless there is some other explanation as to why it would not complete until I went to 2.3.

whew! that was fun!

[clarknova]

Originally Posted by NogDog

Do we know for a fact that 2.5.2 cannot be applied to versions older than 2.3.x? At approx. 13MB, I had sort of assumed that the 2.5.2 download was a full patch file, not an incremental upgrade.

Yeah. The bin files usually contain several updates, one for differing versions, for example the 2.5.2 update has 2.3 -> 2.5.2 update, 2.3.1 -> 2.5.2 update ... 2.3.4 -> 2.5.2 update. But they can't waste too much money on Whispernet charges to include a full update.

The 2.3 update was 17-18 megs, and contained updates for 2.0.x -> 2.3.

The 2.5.3 update only works for 2.5.2 (and is less than 100k).

[clarknova]

Originally Posted by Opus

Hello,

I would like to thank Clarknova for making me a bin file that replaced the corrupt libtopaz.so file on my K2 US. You Rock!

this allowed me to upgrade from 2.0.3 to 2.3 and FINALLY to 2.5.2!

it would seem that 2.5.2 is not totally inclusive unless there is some other explanation as to why it would not complete until I went to 2.3.

whew! that was fun!

That's a bummer that you had to do all that. I'm glad it finally worked for you though. In the install log, did it show that the old libTopaz.so was a different md5sum than the patched one?

[Opus]

keeping updates small for whispernet makes sense but Amazon has no excuse for not having a full update available for 'net download.

maybe my situation was unique but it would seem that this would be a simple solution to the checksum errors I see scattered throughout the forums.
have a full download available that can upgrade from any version with checksum error file overwrite.

again Clarknova, thank you for all your help! It was a strange relief to see the upgrade complete after seeing that exclamation point failure graphic for so long

[Opus]

Hi again Clark,
sorry, I was typing my post and did not see your question,
yes, the log file that your bin file created showed the following:


Mon Jun 21 20:27:16 UTC 2010
Checking MD5sum of /usr/java/lib/libTopaz.so:
e867e5f1ed528df3fd5876655917c869 /usr/java/lib/libTopaz.so
Checking MD5sum of replacement libTopaz.so.2.0.3:
86e049c35318b23a9f123d3ec7ff3e14 libTopaz.so.2.0.3
Moving /usr/java/lib/libTopaz.so to /mnt/us/libTopaz.so.broken...
Copying libTopaz.so.2.0.3 to /usr/java/lib/libTopaz.so...
Checking MD5sum of /usr/java/lib/libTopaz.so:
86e049c35318b23a9f123d3ec7ff3e14 /usr/java/lib/libTopaz.so
Done.

I am wondering if it is significant that the checksum for my original file is formatted differently, having a letter first? or not?

[clarknova]

Originally Posted by Opus

I am wondering if it is significant that the checksum for my original file is formatted differently, having a letter first? or not?

Nope, those are just hexadecimal renderings of 160-bit numbers. Ordering doesn't really matter, I just wanted to be sure that the version you had was really corrupt.

It was great detective work on your part figuring out that the file had somehow been corrupted. It's also incredibly weird. It's the first time I've heard of such an occurrence.

[NogDog]

Originally Posted by clarknova

Yeah. The bin files usually contain several updates, one for differing versions, for example the 2.5.2 update has 2.3 -> 2.5.2 update, 2.3.1 -> 2.5.2 update ... 2.3.4 -> 2.5.2 update. But they can't waste too much money on Whispernet charges to include a full update.

The 2.3 update was 17-18 megs, and contained updates for 2.0.x -> 2.3.

The 2.5.3 update only works for 2.5.2 (and is less than 100k).

Thanks for the clarification. I guess that both explains why the manual install files are so big, and why I'm glad I don't have to work in configuration management for the Kindle development team.