Hi Leon, Leon Hedding (ICT) wrote: > What you describe is exactly what I am thinking. The other bit is as you > say, it is quite difficult to read logs since the GUID would be in the > logs then. That is why I am wondering if having an actual (optional) > GUID value would be of benefit. It might be over kill, but would > certainly help in at least the run once instance. Did you read the rules at <http://wpkg.org/Support>? :-) In general reading the logs should not be so much of a problem as usually the output within the logfiles, event log and on the console is as follows: ... package "<package-name>" (<package-id) installed... So this means you would see something like ... package "Pidgin" ({0EFDF2F9-836D-4EB7-A32D-038BD3F1FB2A}) installed... Which is not really "unreadable" as the ID is mainly for administrators anyway. I think introducing another "guid" attribute would be redundant as the "id" was exactly mentioned to be used for this - identifying the package. Describing the package in a readable form is the purpose of the "name" attribute. br, Rainer |