> I stand corrected ;-)> > > -----Original Message-----> > From:
> [email protected] [mailto:wpkg-users-> >
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]> > 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:
> [email protected] [mailto:wpkg-users-> > >
> [email protected]] 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
Cheers for the guidance on this folks - I've just started playing with WPKG
over the past few weeks - given I have 14 schools I will be using this in, I've
set up a dedicated 'package test' PC at my main site and am starting to look at
the suitable 'conditions' for the packages I'll be rolling out. It is starting
to make a bit more sense and in ways it is better than my 'commercial' stuff in
that if a student does remove a program, WPKG will simply re-insall it at the
next reboot. Useful for the small schools with little security on the desktops
:)
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail, Messenger, Photos and more - all with the new Windows Live. Get
started!
http://www.download.live.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/
_______________________________________________
wpkg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users
