ddns-scripts is broken since last major update

[Florian Eckert]

> Ok, but having a set of quite some providers doesn't have to be bad
> thing. Was this done to just get the number down or because of space
> savings?

Because of  space saving.

> Because if it's the latter, it doesn't look like it would save that much:
> data.tar.gz, extracted from ddns-scripts_service_2.8.0-24_all.ipk, so
> all 81 providers, is just 4453 bytes. Having all providers on the jffs2
> compressed filesystem probably occupies the similar space?

I have not tried that.
I only saw in my file system that the memory consumption was much
higher due to the change from one file to individual json files.

Regards

Florian