Tomasz Chmielewski schrieb: > Falko Trojahn wrote: > > (...) > >> In the meantime someone has deinstalled Office manually (yes, there are >> guys out there doing this ;-) >> and wpkg didn't notice this - or he upgraded to Office 2007 Beta, or >> whatever. > > > IMO system administrator should make sure that no one unauthorized > removes software. > If it's impossible for some reasons... I didn't say this was no administrator ;-)
> > >> ... and so on - every patch hit the client with a dialog box and >> notified him of not being able to install the >> upgrade patch since the underlying product isn't installed. >> >> The problem here is, that >> >> a) wpkg didn't notice that Office XP isn't installed any more, and > > > ...run wpkg with /force flag - it will try to reinstall everything - and > if the check is successful, it will not install of course, but then it > will notice "new" packages (like Office in your case). > > >> b) if I manually remove e.g. msofficexp-SP3 with /remove, the >> dependent packages aren't deinstalled, too. And >> >> c) if I manually reinstall with /install, wpkg "thinks" that the >> patches for Office are installed, but >> does not reinstall them >> >> Only solution was to use /force, but this even tries to remove things >> which aren't installed - not wanted here. > > > All right, I see the problem (I actually started replying during reading > the email). > > You'd have to add Office to the profile, start WPKG, then remove Office > from the profile, and start WPKG again, right? > > >> I'd suggest >> >> - implement dependencies for removal, too (this hits another thing >> again: priorities for removal in opposite order to installation ...) > > > Yep, removal is "broken" a bit, the order should be reversed. > > >> - if the dependencies work, I can have something like <check ... >> everytime="true" ... /> or >> <package id="...." ... check="always" ... /> >> in a package, like the "msofficexp" package above. So, every time >> wpkg is run, this check is done, >> and if the condition isn't met, the package isn't there, and can be >> removed, and all packages which depend from it, too. >> >> What do you think? > > > I don't know if it wouldn't complicate all XML files? And if I think > about a web GUI for WPKG, with that many non-intuitive options, well. :) That's why I thought about a discussion first :) Not everybody needs all options, that's why they are optional ;-) Pro "package options" is for me: it could be determined more finer. Contra: one option more for the xml. Perhaps a bit slower execution? > > If I saw WPKG for the first time, I'd ask why is it necessary - why the > packager doesn't know what packages are installed? > We know the answer, but from the "average Joe" perspective, it might be > a bit unclear. And average Joe might be right - Office is in Software > Add/Remove, right? > > As the tests are rather inexpensive, both in terms of system load and > time, perhaps it would be a good idea to make checks for *all* available > packages each time WPKG is started (unless overridden with something > like /nochecks)? Yes, I thought about that, too. But what would "average Joe" think about this switch - "what's that for"? Perhaps the check should be done every time, anyways. Pro: check every time is perhaps better than not to check, since the problem often can be between keyboard and chair ... ;-) Contra: another command line option ... > > After all, wpkg.xml is really needed just for "execute once" and > revisions for upgrades. Yes, seems reasonable. Falko Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ wpkg-users mailing list wpkg-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wpkg-users
