[wpkg-users] Stopping installations being called each time WPKGruns...

[K.E.Jones at bton.ac.uk]

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