Natalie, I have basically the same task where we have about 5 files within
the binary table that need to be extracted so that we can trigger a custom
actions that depends on all 5 files existing in the same folder.
So I would like to know if you have this working correctly and if so would
you be
Bug #3287 is now created regarding this issue.
Regards,
Jonathan Racine
-Original Message-
From: Bob Arnson [mailto:b...@joyofsetup.com]
Sent: April-19-13 8:54 PM
To: wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Bundle creation error using FIPS
n 19-Apr-13 15:13,
The guts of my code to do this looks like:
using (View binaryTable = session.Database.OpenView(ParameterizedBinaryQuery))
{
// Execute the parameterized query (id is substituted for '?')
// to get the binary record
using (Record idRecord
Note: IIRC, the huge issue with SHA2 is that Windows XP doesn't have
support for it natively. We'd have a lot of unhappy people if we dumped
Windows XP support so this is going to be harder than it should be.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Jonathan Racine jonathan.rac...@hybris.com
wrote:
C#/DTF custom actions have a really nice story to support this without
writing a lick of code. You just add the files to the MSBuild project as
Type: Content Action: Copy Always and they will show up in the current
directory at execution time.
I wonder how much work it would be to get the
Yes, they get bound in. My case is to support stuff that I want to be
different from installer to installer. Also, there are runtime special cases
like SqlPackage deployment where you may need to copy a special DACPAC into the
deployment directory based on the version of the SQL Server on the
soapboxWindows XP is on its deathbed, and supporting it should not hinder
mainstream users./soapbox
Why not release an XP build separately from the main build?
-Original Message-
From: Rob Mensching
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 09:15
To: General discussion for Windows Installer XML
Creating a separate release would create even more overhead than trying to
support it now. It's hard enough to get all of our test cases covered
without creating a whole different release for it. smile/
That said, I generally agree with your statement about Windows XP being on
it *support*
+1 for continuing support for Windows XP (unfortunately!)
From what I understand, it's been hard enough prying Windows 98 from many
people's cold dead hands (and even then I'm sure there are hold-outs
somewhere); good luck with phasing out Windows XP in the near future.
A better question
+1 for XP support (again unfortunately!)
Still number 2 worldwide according to this:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201204-201303 (equal to iOS in UK and
US). This site http://www.netmarketshare.com/ puts it higher.
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Alain Forget
Ahh, this graph is awesome:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200807-201303
Quick glimpse at the picture here says that since 2008 to support roughly
75% of the desktop market you had to support Windows XP Windows 7.
Additionally, if you target Windows (which the WiX toolset does),
nonWiX
Hm, I wonder where gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200807-201303 gets their
data, because I'm not sure I'm willing to believe iOS has been on a steady
decline since Sept 2009 while Linux/Other (which I have to assume includes
Android) has barely moved. Most suspicious.
/nonWiX
I am not talking about removing XP support from the installers, but from the
WiX tools. While the numbers of end-users still using XP is still high, the
number of developers in that group is far smaller. Frankly speaking,
developers should be developing on newer platforms and testing on XP. I
I see iOS slowly growing. I don't seen Android broken out at all. They get
their data from web sites using their counter to track visitors. It's
certainly not scientific but they have a lot of users and they're numbers
are usually in the ballpark when compared to more deep analysis. Although,
I
Ahh, that may have already happened. I'm not sure you can use the WiX
toolset to compile MSI files on Windows XP. I don't know that anyone has
tried in a long time. smile/
The code I'm talking about lives in Burn though, which ships to end users,
thus (presumably) runs on Windows XP some
On 30-Apr-13 13:30, Rob Mensching wrote:
Quick glimpse at the picture here says that since 2008 to support roughly
75% of the desktop market you had to support Windows XP Windows 7.
Don't forget the server stats: Server 2003 is in support until July 2015.
change the numbers). I still can't
On 29-Apr-13 14:40, Christopher West C wrote:
Is the below behavior a bug with the Wix burn bootstrapper functionality?
No, it's a behavior difference due to running in a chainer instead of
from a bare .msi package.
--
sig://boB
http://joyofsetup.com/
iOS slowly growing? Maybe in terms of devices in use, but in proportion to
other OSes, it's clearly on a steady decline in that graph, and the only OS
that is probably taking their market share should be Android (if only it were
Windows Phone 7/8 or Blackberry). This matches what I've been
Thank you for your reply. I do have the following question.
In the bare .msi package, in the .msi via a custom action I can check the
UILevel to know if the user is uninstalling the .msi from ARP, versus if they
are uninstalling from the command prompt in no UI mode.
If the same .msi is
I don't think that first assertion is quite correct.
What you can tell is that you are being uninstalled with /qb+ or whatever
exactly evaluates to UILevel = 3. Apparently ARP launches with something
like that instead of /qb- which is essentially what /passive translates
to (both in the Windows
I should also note that a custom BA can take full control the UI behavior.
The wixstdba is pretty basic, although Neil is helping it get a little
smarter.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Rob Mensching r...@robmensching.comwrote:
I don't think that first assertion is quite correct.
What you
Hi All,
Is there a way to define prerequisites that need to be installed before the BA
loads? For example, I want burn to install SQL express before loading the
bootstrapper application. The reason for this is my BA checks SQL connectivity
before beginning the install process. I need to
The mbapreq does this for BA's written in managed code. It's not simple but
you can see how it works in the code under src\ext\BalExtension\mba\host
and src\ext\BalExtension\wixstdba
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Nick Miller nmil...@livetechnology.comwrote:
Hi All,
Is there a way to
Thanks, I'll take a look
-Original Message-
From: Rob Mensching [mailto:r...@robmensching.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:21 PM
To: General discussion for Windows Installer XML toolset.
Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Burn Prerequisites
The mbapreq does this for BA's written in managed
On 30-Apr-13 16:59, Rob Mensching wrote:
I should also note that a custom BA can take full control the UI behavior.
Kinda sorta. It couldn't--today anyway--override how an internal-ui
package gets displayed. Probably something we should expose to the BA so
that if someone were to write a BA
I'm new to WiX so apologies if the answer to this question is obvious.
I've got my WiX installer working properly, but there's an odd problem with
the MSI. When you open the MSI's property tabsheet (by right-clicking on the
MSI in the Windows file explorer and selecting Properties), all the
Thanks for the information. I did some testing and did notice a difference
between /passive in Windows Installer versus Burn in how the UILevel is set.
In windows installer, the command msiexec /uninstall CWTestGACInstaller.msi
/passive will set the UILevel to 3 in the msi. Using the burn
Yes, the BootstrapperApplication is provided the Command struct that has
all the information about the command-line.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Christopher West C
christopher.c.w...@ericsson.com wrote:
Thanks for the information. I did some testing and did notice a
difference between
I have to say this seems like an odd requirement, I have an application that
needs SQL Express and I have structure the BA to detect SQL and if it is not
present install it in the normal burn chain sequence. Is there a reason why you
can't do this?
-Original Message-
From: Nick Miller
29 matches
Mail list logo
