Home Forums Peripherals & Multimedia iTunes, iPhone, iPod, iPad, Apple TV iOS 5 and iPod

Apple site says 4th generation iPod Touch can run iOS 5—"just connect the device and follow the on screen instructions."

Any idea why iTunes (10.5) would say only 4.3.5 is available for the device?

Hard to say, beyond suspecting server-based issues. When exactly did you get this response last? There were early reports of problems upgrading (albeit not of your type), but these seem to have subsided.

Agree with alternaut there. My iPod touch is now running iOS 5, after experiencing the initial (day one) server problems he indicates.

@Ira, (silly question): have you actually clicked on the 'Check For Update' button?

edit: just to cover all bases, can you select 'View My Account' from the Store menu and succeed in that task?

Not a silly question, and yes to both. Also, this was happening today.

I tried a permissions repair one more time, and lo and behold, the only item that came up was one iTunes ".rsc" file; wrong group number. This was fixed and another attempt at updating now shows that iOS 5 is an option.

This problem resolved.

Thanks guys.

The genius at the Apple store said they had been having problems like that supposedly due to server loads. His advice was to just keep trying every few hours.

Can you pull up the log (launch disk utility and type ⌘L). I'd be truly interested in seeing the exact full file path, and the exact group numbers [i.e., is x, should be y]. Please post that line.

Thanks.



@Joe: yes, we mentioned the server problems... but they should be all gone by now, and none of those i saw discussed in forums, or experienced myself were of this nature. Everyone was able to download the update for 5... the problems came when trying to verify the downloaded file with Apple, without which the installer refused to proceed.

Sure. Here it is:


2011-10-15 11:36:11 -0700: Disk Utility started.

2011-10-15 11:36:20 -0700: Repairing permissions for “Macintosh HD”
2011-10-15 11:38:08 -0700: User differs on “Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/Resources/iTunes.rsrc”; should be 0; user is 501.
2011-10-15 11:38:08 -0700: Group differs on “Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/Resources/iTunes.rsrc”; should be 0; group is 501.
2011-10-15 11:38:08 -0700: Repaired “Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/Resources/iTunes.rsrc”
2011-10-15 11:39:43 -0700:
2011-10-15 11:39:43 -0700: Permissions repair complete
2011-10-15 11:39:43 -0700:
2011-10-15 11:39:43 -0700:


Some additional information: I had replaced the original iTunes.rsrc file with one that provides colored icons in the sidebar. I have done this with every version since the colors vanished.

Now that I have the color back I see that I am missing the red/yellow/green buttons in the upper left-hand corner. As we speak I am downloading iTunes 10.5 again to reinstall and most likely I will stay with the default look (assuming the traffic light buttons are back).

Update: Just finished the installation and the button are back. No sidebar colors, but I think I will leave well enough alone.

Aha... thanks.

Still seems truly odd that the group should even matter there. Just goes to show that Apple is perhaps placing to much emphasis on some things, while seemingly ignoring others.

I.e., Why the heck should that particular group substitution on that particular file matter so much?
[it shouldn't matter.]

While at the same time, why the heck doesn't iTunes' code signature pass muster...

$ codesign -vvv /Applications/iTunes.app
/Applications/iTunes.app: a sealed resource is missing or invalid
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj/DevicePrefsNotes.nib/objects.xib: resource added
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj/PartyShuffleSettings.nib/objects.xib: resource added


¿ ?
[it shouldn't fail.]

FWIW, it does on my machines (iTunes 10.5, on machines running 10.6.8 and 10.7.2).

Since I know you're not on Lion yet, I even went back and checked the prior version of iTunes on my 10.6.8 machine:

$ ssh ronk@zebra.local
Last login: Sun Oct 16 15:30:26 2011 from 192.168.0.15
$ system_profiler SPSoftwareDataType | grep Mac
System Version: Mac OS X 10.6.8 (10K549)
$ cd /Volumes/Retro/Backups.backupdb/Zebra/2011-10-12-001421/Veldt
$ mdls -name kMDItemVersion ./Applications/iTunes.app
kMDItemVersion = "10.4.1"
$ codesign -vvv ./Applications/iTunes.app
./Applications/iTunes.app: valid on disk
./Applications/iTunes.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement
$ logout

Okay, that's for your 10.4.1 -- let's see iTunes 10.5 with Mac OS 10.6.8 then.

Plus, as you can see, in my situation, resources were added. So something must differ between our builds. [it wouldn't be the first time there were two different versions of identically numbered apps out there. Wasn't that the case for iTunes 10.2 or 10.1.2 maybe?]

Anyway, this is hardly news. Try these then:

codesign -vvv /Applications/Safari.app
codesign -vvv /Applications/Utilities/Java\ Preferences.app
codesign -vvv /System/Library/CoreServices/Java\ Web\ Start.app

[or write a script to loop through a folder testing apps, as i have.]

I've noticed over time tons of Apple updates where *something* fails codesign verification.

::shrug::

As I said, I also tested iTunes 10.5 under both Mac OS 10.6.8 and 10.7.2, with identical results. I only bothered to copy/paste the results from the situation most likely to reproducue your results (under 10.6.8, before the recent rash of updates).


All three pass with flying colors on 10.7.2. All three produce errors on 10.6.8.

I wonder if it's a difference between being installed as part of an incremental update or a Combo update. I do it whichever way suits me at the time, and can't remember how I did it in whatever update those three were came with.

But iTunes 10.5 was installed by an incremental update on both machines, and 10.4.1 probably was also.

Actually, Safari 5.1.1 was also installed by the same incremental update on both machines. Hmmm.... Something else, then. The only browser-related update I did since then was to update SilverLight, but I only did that on the 10.7.2 machine where Safari still has a valid signature. The funky Safari 5.1.1 on the Snow Leopard machine should still be pristine.

I just scanned /Applications and /Applications/Utilities (but not nested subfolders) for a quick census, and the errors I found were in Safari 5.1.1 and Java Preferences under Snow Leopard, and on both machines a handful of old applications that weren't signed, and a few installers/updaters.

I know the feeling.

Believe me, 90% of the time that i do my checking is immediately after installing the updated item (or immediately after the required reboot). So "pristine" is definitely what i expect at those times. [i do the codesign test ASAP, because then i turn around and strip out all but 2 language projects (along with designable.nib files, etc), and then i verify again. It should pass after doing all that stuff (assuming it passed in the first place), as long as the signing was done in such a way that those extraneous items were duly excluded.]

Could the settings in Keychain Access which control OCSP and CRL have anything to do with our disparities?

I don't see how. The error is extra or modified resources. I doubt that Apple would have revoked the certificate they used to codesign their apps, and even if they did the errors would be different.

(Mine are set to "Best Attempt" for both, with priority to OCSP.)

Sorry is it me but after updating to IOS5, my contacts have multiple entries. In some cases as many as 6 entries. While I would like to know how this happened, I'm more concerned with what to do about it.

Deleting the multiple entries one at a time for the many hundreds of entries in my contacts is not very appealing.

If there's a way around this then please can someone let me know.

Tommy

A Google search produced many occurrences/solutions for this problem. One of the solutions is here.