I agree with that last sentence. Fusion was a good idea, poorly executed.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:26 AM, John Ludlow wrote:
> On 16 January 2013 09:44, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > On 16/01/2013 09:26, Rob Hamflett wrote:
> >> Doesn't this just bring back DLL Hell? It seems that we have to
> >> com
On 16 January 2013 09:44, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 09:26, Rob Hamflett wrote:
>> Doesn't this just bring back DLL Hell? It seems that we have to
>> completely abandon using merge modules for runtime deployment. How is a
>> user performing a command line installation or repair supposed t
On 16/01/2013 09:26, Rob Hamflett wrote:
> Doesn't this just bring back DLL Hell? It seems that we have to
> completely abandon using merge modules for runtime deployment. How is a
> user performing a command line installation or repair supposed to know
> whether or not it's safe to use the 'a' o
>"Normally, the higher minor version have compatibility with the lower
one."
So not always, then. "Normally" is a world away from "there's a
specific policy in place to make sure all versions are backwards
compatible".
Doesn't this just bring back DLL Hell? It seems that we have to
complete
On 15/01/2013 15:42, Rob Hamflett wrote:
> Aren't security patches implemented by redirecting the
> loader to the new assemblies? It seems strange having a system where
> the security of potentially hundreds of programs could be reduced by a
> command line typo.
>From
http://social.msdn.microsof
I've been reading some comments online recently about using
REINSTALLMODE=amus when you're installer contains runtime merge modules.
The danger being that you can downgrade patched DLLs. Doesn't each
set of runtime files have it's own folder in the WinSxS folder? Do
patches for these files
6 matches
Mail list logo
