Hiya, I stand corrected ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: wpkg-users-bounces at lists.wpkg.org [mailto:wpkg-users- > bounces at lists.wpkg.org] On Behalf Of K.E.Jones at bton.ac.uk > Sent: 11 February 2009 02:33 > To: Chris Wilcox > Cc: wpkg > Subject: Re: [wpkg-users] Stopping installations being called each time > WPKGruns... > > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wpkg-users-bounces at lists.wpkg.org [mailto:wpkg-users- > > bounces at lists.wpkg.org] On Behalf Of Tomasz Chmielewski > > Sent: 10 February 2009 22:06 > > To: Chris Wilcox > > Cc: wpkg > > Subject: Re: [wpkg-users] Stopping installations being called each > time > > WPKG runs... > > > > Chris Wilcox schrieb: > > > > > That gets me to my question - the commercial system I use will > never > > > initiate a package installation if the local and network ini file > > says > > > that the package is already installed. With WPKG, it seems you > MUST > > > specifiy conditions to prevent this occuring? Most of the software > I > > > use is educational stuff and is not listed in any of the WPKG > silent > > > installer pages - it can often be quite difficult to work out what > > > condition syntax to use to prevent installs repeating at each > > > workstation boot - MSI's handle this a little better as they don't > > > normally repeat the whole install, but many exe based installations > > > insist on re-installing even if the app is already on. > > > > > > Am I missing something obvious here? Should WPKG try to repeat > > installs > > > at every boot if the package does not have any condition syntax? > > > > You missed this one: > > > > http://wpkg.org/Execute_once_/_always > > > > Does it solve your problem? > > > > > > Hi Tomasz, > > I'm not entirely sure Chris meant that. I think he was talking more > about the general > complexity of package definitions as a whole. > > Hi Chris, > > Most commercial systems rely on solely on getting a clean exit from an > install and > then updating their files to say software is installed. In an ideal > world this is totally > correct and just "works". In an un-ideal world, just because an > installer says it worked, > it's not necessarily true that it worked the way you expected. I see > what you mean but in > some ways you're highlighting a problem with the commercial systems. > They don't "check", > they make assumptions... > > WPKG hedges its bets because, quite frankly, dumb things happen. > Installers can sometimes > screw up without appearing to fail and if they don't re-check things > you > also run the risk > of admins and power users fiddling with stuff behind their backs. > > The "checks" are simple tests to look for some key registry entry, > file > or other thing to > verify if a package is installed or not. It's kept flexible so WPKG can > be a general launcher > of software and not just installers but you can also put more checks in > to handle power users > and admins playing with things. > > I have to admit working out the "checks" to confirm something is > installed can be a pain > but it is literally a precautionary test to check if software got > installed. I generally > only use the "uninstall" key check to confirm things. I've rarely used > the other checks > because most people fear my wrath if they play around with their > systems > ;-) > > The things is, as you quite rightly say, WPKG *always* performs these > checks. I don't think > anyone has queried that before and that's a bonofide comment. I'm > wondering if you really > could streamline WPKG to not need checks... hrmmm... It's worth > thinking > about! I'll try > and do some groundwork for the devs and see if I can make a case for it. > And ...and here I'm corrected ! As Rainer says, if you don't supply checks... no checks are made... doh! Back to reading the code again! Keith > I come from an educational background too. Even worse, we teach > "Business" here so the software > is expensive and full of copyright protections! If you'd seen the utter > rubbish with activation > keys, internet activation and registration dialogs our software throws > up you'd understand why > I'm glad I've got WPKG to play with! > > I've tried just about everything from repackaging software, making my > own self-healing MSIs, > using AutoIt (to automate keypresses) through to fighting old > InstallShield setups and recording > response files to replay to it. Installers are just nuts nowadays! > > I agree totally with you on the MSI front. MSI's are a much cleaner > way > of installing software. > I also have to admit that they're a right pain to write correctly! MS > has not approached > MSI with an idea of making it simple! > > Ho hum, > > Anyway, I'd better get back to other things... > > Have fun, > > Keith > > > > > > -- > > Tomasz Chmielewski > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > wpkg-users mailing list archives >> > > http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/ > > _______________________________________________ > > wpkg-users mailing list > > wpkg-users at lists.wpkg.org > > http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > wpkg-users mailing list archives >> > http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/ > _______________________________________________ > wpkg-users mailing list > wpkg-users at lists.wpkg.org > http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users |