Re: [WiX-users] UK Localization
ex-pat UK developer looking for nostalgia here 8) They are probably looking for things like: License Agreement should be Licence Agreement (License is a noun Licence is a verb in UK English) Tickbox instead of Checkbox suffixes-ise instead of -ize Colour instead of Color. I just skim read WixUI_en-us.wxl (not the latest version though.) The only thing that stood out is License Agreement. I had to fix that many times in InstallShield UK English installers back in the day, and I vaguely recall that it was the only thing that really needed fixing. I think it should be done if it's a requirement. It's not difficult. Following on from Chris Lord's comment about Welsh localization... I think if they need Welsh they would have specifically asked for it. They would have said we want a Welsh localisation. Welsh is entirely a different language. UK English does not encompass it, even though the UK does politically/geographically. Confused? - you should be. This venn diagram clarifies it somewhat http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-united-kingdom-great-britain-england-venn-diagram/. You are now enlightened 8)) -- View this message in context: http://windows-installer-xml-wix-toolset.687559.n2.nabble.com/UK-Localization-tp7113028p7113678.html Sent from the wix-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Write once. Port to many. Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev ___ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
Re: [WiX-users] New file not installed
Sounds like you have sequenced RemoveExistingProducts towards the end of the execute sequence. Correct? What happens if you sequence it early in the sequence so uninstall happens first? (that _should_ solve the problem) Is this new component in a feature whose state is not being migrated correctly by MigrateFeatureStates standard action? -- View this message in context: http://windows-installer-xml-wix-toolset.687559.n2.nabble.com/New-file-not-installed-tp6696061p6697454.html Sent from the wix-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-d2d-2 ___ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
Re: [WiX-users] Problem with CA executing when it shouldn't
To check for versions of 64-bit Windows use the VersionNT64 property. This isn't strictly necessary. On 64 platforms, VersionNT64 _and_ VersionNT properties are created. It's ok to just check the VersionNT value. You only really need to use the VersionNT64 property to determine if the OS is 64bit or not. To the OP: Do 3 things: 1) Open the msi in Orca and confirm the condition is what you expect. 2) Get the properties values from the log (log with /L*v) and post them. 3) Run an ICE validator over the msi. -- View this message in context: http://windows-installer-xml-wix-toolset.687559.n2.nabble.com/Problem-with-CA-executing-when-it-shouldn-t-tp6631071p6635319.html Sent from the wix-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey ___ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
Re: [WiX-users] Caching payload, sudden terrible performance?
You have digitally signed binaries and cab files? Perhaps the caching mechanism is trying to perform SCVP/OCSP? Each signed file results a network timeout, which has a long default. SCVP/OCSP is retried before failure is accepted as the result? -- View this message in context: http://windows-installer-xml-wix-toolset.687559.n2.nabble.com/Caching-payload-sudden-terrible-performance-tp6599374p6604212.html Sent from the wix-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 10 Tips for Better Web Security Learn 10 ways to better secure your business today. Topics covered include: Web security, SSL, hacker attacks Denial of Service (DoS), private keys, security Microsoft Exchange, secure Instant Messaging, and much more. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426210/ ___ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
Re: [WiX-users] Caching payload, sudden terrible performance?
Have you run process explorer to monitor what is going on while they are being cached? Perhaps something else is accessing the files (i.e. AV software?) -- View this message in context: http://windows-installer-xml-wix-toolset.687559.n2.nabble.com/Caching-payload-sudden-terrible-performance-tp6599374p6599860.html Sent from the wix-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention Research study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/ ___ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
[WiX-users] Using pyro to create delta patches for multiple previous releases
Hi, Is it possible to create a single delta msp file that patches multiple previous versions? I'm struggling to find documentation on whether this is possible or not, so I tried an experiment... I'm using this cmd to create whole file patches successfully: pyro -nologo .\v1.3.0\patch.wixmsp -out .\v1.3.0\Product.msp -t RTM .\v1.3.0\Diff-v1.1.0.wixmst -t RTM .\v1.3.0\Diff-v1.2.0.wixmst and this to create a delta patch to get from 1.1.0 to 1.3.0: pyro -delta -nologo .\v1.3.0\patch.wixmsp -out .\v1.3.0\Product.msp -t RTM .\v1.3.0\Diff-v1.1.0.wixmst This attempt to create a delta patch that can take you from 1.1.0 or 1.2.0 to 1.3.0 fails: pyro -delta -nologo .\v1.3.0\patch.wixmsp -out .\v1.3.0\Product.msp -t RTM .\v1.3.0\Diff-v1.1.0.wixmst -t RTM .\v1.3.0\Diff-v1.2.0.wixmst pyro.exe : error PYRO0001 : The parameter is incorrect Exception Type: System.ComponentModel.Win32Exception Stack Trace: at Microsoft.Tools.WindowsInstallerXml.PatchAPI.PatchInterop.CreateDelta(String deltaFile, String targetFile, String targetSymbolPath, String targetRetainOffsets, String[] basisFiles, String[] basisSymbolPaths, String[] basisIgnoreLengths, String[] basisIgnoreOffsets, String[] basisRetainLengths, String[] basisRetainOffsets, PatchSymbolFlagsType apiPatchingSymbolFlags, Boolean optimizePatchSizeForLargeFiles, Boolean retainRangesIgnored) at Microsoft.Tools.WindowsInstallerXml.BinderFileManager.ResolvePatch(FileRow fileRow, Boolean retainRangeWarning) at Microsoft.Tools.WindowsInstallerXml.CabinetBuilder.CreateCabinet(CabinetWorkItem cabinetWorkItem) at Microsoft.Tools.WindowsInstallerXml.CabinetBuilder.ProcessWorkItems() Am I doing something wrong, or am I attempting to do the impossible? -- View this message in context: http://windows-installer-xml-wix-toolset.687559.n2.nabble.com/Using-pyro-to-create-delta-patches-for-multiple-previous-releases-tp6538087p6538087.html Sent from the wix-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
Re: [WiX-users] DIFxApp does not properly rollback to the old driver when doing a major upgrade
I don't think there's much the DIFXApp team can do to make the lib foolproof/robust. I'm pretty sure that DIFXApp is simply a wrapper around the win32 setupapi API. I've used both for the last few years. In many cases, I've found that even when using the win32 api directly, it's not possible to rollback uninstalled drivers, the exact behavior is very platform dependent. In many cases, the api returns reboot required, at which point there is no chance of reinstalling the driver in the same session. This can be because the driver service was marked for deletion, so SCM will deny recreating the service until after a reboot. I'd be very surprised if DIFXApp can work around this. -- View this message in context: http://windows-installer-xml-wix-toolset.687559.n2.nabble.com/DIFxApp-does-not-properly-rollback-to-the-old-driver-when-doing-a-major-upgrade-tp5821359p6538903.html Sent from the wix-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ___ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
