Pitch
I'm looking for high level advise on how to structure a WiX and Burn MSI based installer solution for an application suite.
Question
Given the layout below how many distinct MSI packages should an installer suite utilize when all apps/features and shared libs go into the same installation directory?
One single MSI package for the whole suite is clearly too large (as shown by the current system)
One (complete) MSI package per application would duplicate the dll libraries shared between the apps, which would mean a duplication of 100s of MB worth of DLLs. (Plus, to me, unknown headaches with MSI refcounting)
One MSI package per binary library and executable?
I.e., many MSI files would only contain a single DLL or a single EXE
Can I make sure the EXE MSI package is only installed when its prerequisite library packages are installed?
Background
Our application suite is layed out a bit like MS Office in that we have one installation folder where a series of applications is installed to together with all their shared library files. That is:
C:\ProgramFiles\MyApplicationSuite
\ - App1.exe
\ - App2.exe
\ - App3.exe
\ - ...
\ - libxy.dll
\ - qt.dll
\ - ...
Up until now, we had one single InnoSetup installer, that could install all of the apps as features, that is, there was only one single Programs entry in the Windows Programs list. This worked well because most of the time the whole suite was installed anyway, and some installations would maybe not use one or two apps.
Since the single setup approach start to break, and Corporate Requirements force me to switch to an MSI based installation, I'm looking into how to structure such a beast the best way using WiX, Burn and granular MSI packages.
Some thoughts along the lines of what you already state on the topic of splitting or merging setups: Wix to Install multiple Applications. Have a skim of this and see if there are any variables that apply (release schedule, localization, build speed, etc...).
You can use merge modules or WiX include files (basically works like a normal header file include in C++, it is a preprocessor operation) to include shared components in several setups. They will then be properly reference counted and you can distribute updates to them in a controlled fashion.
Personally I like to split shared components completely away from my main MSI and install them via a separate prerequisite setup and then bundle it all together in a bootstrapper made with Burn or equivalent toolkits designed to allow installation of several MSI and / or EXE files in sequence. I find this yields good cohesion / coupling. This is debatable. An MSI is more "self-contained" when it contains shared, embedded components (merge modules / include files), but particularly for corporate deployment I like to split all shared components to their own prerequisite MSI. There are some very technical reasons for this that I would need more time to explain than what is available.
I will leave it at that for now, possibly returning and updating later.
Some Links (primarily for easy retrieval):
How to express a file dependency using WiX
WiX (Windows Installer Xml), Create universal variables
Wix Installer : Setting component condition property when doing a MSIEXEC admin install at command line
Merge module files into different locations
MSI Reference Counting: Two products install the same MSIs
Related
We have a product with more than 100 'pieces' most of which are optional 'plug-ins'. We would like a non-programmer to be able to make a "customized" installer on a per-customer/sale basis. Our ideal would be simply a single executable/msi with a folder structure from which files/folders could be deleted, then when run the installer would simply not offer features corresponding to the deleted bits.
A separate, but similar issue is that the developers of these plug-ins are not installation experts and we would prefer not to have to edit shared installer source to add/remove one from our build-set. We've been using the "synchronized folders" feature of Advanced Installer for this, but we would like a separately selectable feature for each plug-in.
Is there an installer tool-chain that can support such(or similar) behavior?
If so does anyone have tips on how to actually implement it using said tool?
I created such a tool stack at my last job. We did product line development with dozens of service families, hundreds of features, thousands of merge modules and tens of thousands of files in a typical installer.
Each merge module was authored using IsWiX and compiled using WiX. We then used WiX XML as an input to our build automation system to generate InstallShield installers. A service family would have an XML file to describe it's portion of the feature tree and it would all get emitted into an empty InstallShield project.
Finally a product XML file would describe the INSTALLDIR, UpgradeCode and other meta along with which features to consume. We built dozens and dozens of installers off this common base code.
It would take days to explain everything but that gives you the idea. For a simpler environment you could create a UI to generate WiX code and then compile it into an MSI.
But I don't know that I'd ever give this to a non-programmer. Creating installers is programming.
There is no tool that creates features at runtime in the MSI package, at least no MSI based tool. This complicates too much the installer logic, as you would need a very complex custom action that reads the contents of the folders found next to the installer and then generate entries in the following MSI tables: Files, Directory, Component, Feature, FeatureComponents. And then inter-connect all of this.
That is not something easy to do at all, and very error prone is tried by something how does not have extensive experience in building MSI packages.
have you considered/tried any non-MSI package builders?
Due to severe limitations of the Microsoft Windows Installer (MSI) system it is required to create a bootstrapper in order to install multiple MSI files (due to pre/post-requisites). However, this introduces an distribution problem because you now have multiple files that need to be included with the distribution. There are of course multiple ways to distribute this as a single file.
1: An archive
You can put all the files into a single archive that users download. The obvious choice for MS Windows is of course a PK-ZIP archive. But this is not very user friendly. Users will first have to extract the archive, and then run the bootstrapper (which would be called setup.exe).
2: A SFX archive
Instead of distributing an plain archive file you could wrap it into a self extracting archive. Executing this SFX archive would prompt the user to extract and/or run the contents. But this adds yet another prompt to the whole installation process (#1: SFX prompt, #2: bootstrapper prompt, #3: main installer prompt). This is also not very user friendly, as it increase annoyance due to multiple prompts.
3: Single file bootstrapper
Of course there is the option to embed all the extract files into the bootstrapper. This is probably the most user friendly for a normal end-user. However, this is less friendly for system administrators, because usually bootstrappers are less manageable than the MSI files. An admin would rig the system so that all requisites are also installed when the main MSI is installed, thus the bootstrapper would not be needed.
4: Other?
An other unlisted method?
So what do you think is the best way to distribute a installer for MS Windows software that requires a bootstrapper?
We provide a single file bootstrapper for retail distribution and all single-user installations.
Volume licensing customers (e.g. 10+ seats) receive one (or more) MSI files along with instructions and a list of prerequsites that must be installed before our application will run (which slightly differ between XP, Vista and Win2k). The EXE blocks installation if the prerequisites are not installed, the MSI will permit installation under the assumption that the sysadmin knows what they're doing and might be installing the prereq's at the same time, before the next reboot.
Basically the single bootstrapper is for non-sysadmins, people who want a single click solution. System administrators and corporate IT support who prefer more fine grained control over their installation are happy for multiple files, even if it means more work for them. The single EXE file is available publicly, the instructions + multiple files are only available by contacting our sales team.
This method gives us the best of both worlds, as well as the ability to provide different default configurations for home and corporate customers - hints, tips, splash screens, auto-updates and welcome dialogs are all disabled by default for corporate installations but enabled for "single" users.
We use Wix to create MSI files which is hugely flexible and can easily be automated with build scripts.
To chain multiple MSI/EXE files together for distribution via single bootstrapper I would highly recommend DotNetInstaller. I'm in no way connected or affiliated with this product, but it has been a lifesaver on projects for generating highly configurable bootstrappers in unmanaged code.
I wrote up my recent experiences in developing a multi-language MSI and bootstrapper using these technologies here. This talks through the process from start to finish. Using DotNetInstaller you can download and install dependencies from a URL on demand, or embed them directly within the bootstrapper with ease. I did also consider WIX's own SETUPBLD bootstrapper generator and the GenerateBootStrapper MSBuild task but they are pretty basic. That said WIX 3.5 Burn utility is currently in the pipeline and could be a pretty decent alternative once it's released.
Regarding: 1: An archive: 2: A SFX archive
You could use a self-extracting .ZIP that automatically launches a Setup.exe. WinZip offers this support inexpensively. That way, it would be more customer-friendly. It can be configured to launch the bootstrapper without a prompt.
Regarding: 3: Single file bootstrapper
At the risk of sounding like an InstallShield salesman, InstallShield 2009 will take care of everything you're asking about -- it smooths over the MSI shortcoming of needing a bootstrapper. You could use the Release Wizard to create a single-.EXE all-in-one bootstrapper. Or you could create a web-deploy setup that is very small and then downloads the payload from a web site. Or you could put different features in separate .CAB files, and the user only needs to deploy those CAB files corresponding to the features he wants to install. InstallShield comes bundled with dozens of prerequisites ready to add to your Setup.
Depending on your siutation, MSI v4.5 and 5.0 might help you -- they have native support for multi-package transaction chaining. Of course, depending on what OSes you support, you may still need a bootstrapper to make sure the right level of MSI support is present.
I had a similar problem where I needed to distribute some optional support software, MSI installer, and another file just incase the MSI file needed it. I basically created a native application to handle the whole process. I wrote a blog about it here (http://blog.foldertrack.com/?p=45)
hii,
well i develop a setup.exe(bootstrapper) using GenerateBootstrapper.Bootstrapper to load my msi file after check and installing prerequisites.It perfectly running if i make ComponentsLocation
*) either "HomeSite" to download prerequisites from the microsoft and install.
*) or "Relative" to take the prerequisites at the same location where my application exist and install.
But in my scenario i want that when i run setup.exe(bootstrapper) it first check component in the location where my application exist and IF it's(component) is not exist there then it download them from vendor's URL(Microsoft).
Is it possible with wix v3.5???
This is not possible with the msbuild GenerateBootstrapper task.
As for the burn.exe tool in wix v3.5, it is still in development and currently undocumented. The wix.chm in the latest weekly release does not yet mention burn.exe at the time of writing.
edit: The reason that it is not possible is that it is not really useful. I imagine you have two different deployement scenarios:
the software is delivered
on a CD or DVD with all the
prerequisites included
the software is
downloaded as a zip archive and the prequisites are
omitted to minimize download time
You need to prepare two different file trees anyway in this case. So just create a different bootstrapper for each scenario.
edit2: you can also create the two different bootstrappers, then create a third setup.exe which is a simple application that determines which of the two boostrappers to launch.
I have set up cruisecontrol.net cs for my project that has a number of modules and components that get build and get stored in folder by date on the build machine.The thing is that I need to make setup for the application(wpf non web) and the thing is that since there are a number of module and different solutions that build and finally make the product (dlls) etc.Any suggestion on comming up with a setup strategy that will create a nightly setup and also what setup package to use (something simpler or according to you that would take less time) I was planning to install something on the build machine that would pick up the files from the folder (what folder?) and make the setup...
A link to illustrate the point is Firefox's nightly build.
Any advice guys
Thanks in advance.
I am finding that this system is working pretty well for me. I assume VS 2005/2008 and C#, but the same principle works for other compilers and languages just substitute your own flavoring.
Using CC.NET
Check out all source with scheduleTrigger, if multiple locations use
Use MSBuild to build each solution that is required (assuming VS 2005/2008), or nant, or whatever build tool works best for compiling your component projects
Use MSBuild to create WIX installers, though I have also used MSBuild to create InnoSetup and Wise Installation Studio installations
Use MSBuild to update the AssemblyInfo.cs files for any projects that you want the build script to control
Use your source control command line to check-in updated AssemblyInfo.ca files
Finally use MSBuild to copy your output installer to a new folder in your drop server. I use the time stamp from the primary product executable to make a timestamp along with the generated version number to name the folder (../Builds/Product/v.M.m.r.p - DATE TIME/)
I also like to generate a build notice email at the end.
As for installer recommendations, there is a trade-off.
For fast generation, use a script installer like NSIS or Inno Setup. The drawback is not being Windows Installer compatible.
For Windows Installer products, using Wise or InstallShield are faster to generate the first time, but expensive tools and I find the maintenance on my installation scripts is high. Using WIX tends to be much more expensive the first time (learning curve + angle bracket-tax), but then easier to maintain as it is all XML and the command line tools are easy to use.
I have had some success with installation bundling with Inno Setup as Windows Installer bundling and chaining (at least for Windows XP) is a real pain.
We used Visual Build and Wise for our installer creation and find that highly intuitive and easy to create the set ups with. The actual CC.NET project does a few things, first thing is it checks to make sure all of the needed parts have been built successfully since the last time we created an installer (we allow installers on demand as well as scheduled every night) if they haven't been build successfully we rebuild all the componenets, once they have been (or if they already were) built successfully we then call VisualBUildPro and let it create the installer. Visual Build Pro, handles all the copying and the calling of Wise for the actual installer. Once the installer is created we publish it out to the destination where everyone expects it to be. We also have modified the XSL for the email publisher on the builds server, so everyone gets a link to the newest installer once it is published.
A few things about the nightly builds if you can you should try setting up a symbol server and have every installer upload symbols with source code information up to them. This is also a good point to have any documentation (D'Oxygen; SandCastle) Create and the time to run your FULL suite of testing that you have available.
Take a look at WiX. This toolset allows the setup project to be defined in XML form, and then generates the msi from this XML. The fact that the project is defined in XML gives you alot of flexibility to modify this XML on the fly during the build (if needed).
It integrates with MSBuild - see this article, and also works well with NAnt - see this article.
i'm using vs installer to build a setup package for my vb6 app.
and the problem is i can see that under the project explorer there's a list of dependencies attached to my exe file.
alt text http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9696/croppercapture259lr8.png
and under the file system on target machine treeview, i can actually store the dll/ocx on a folder or in the windows system folder itself[the left window].
alt text http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9224/croppercapture251qm1.png
so what i don't understand is .. is there actually a difference?
if i just set the dependencies and didn't add the dll or ocx to the folder or win sys folder, does the dll automatically get copied over too?
It is not guaranteed that all those dlls will be present on the system that the software is being installed on. So they need to be included in your installer. From there you have two choices.
You can install them in your windows system folders or in your application folder. The difference is that if you install them in your application folder you can set things up on XP and Vista so that the different version of the software with different version of the components can be fired up and run side by side. Installing them into the system folder will break any older version that depend on older version of the components.
Installing in the application folder rarely doesn't work if a component depends on other components that can't be updated. When this occurs it is usually with with Microsoft libraries. They have gotten better over the years on this issue.
You can read more about the issues involving side by side execution here
Finally the dependencies need to be in your installer so that they are registered in the Windows Registry. Unlike most .NET assemblies any ActiveX/COM application needs to have the component registered in order to use it even if you are using CreateObject and Variant types to access it.
I will admit the whole process is idiosyncratic and is one of the sources for the stories about DLL Hell. Start with the MSDN article, use wikipedia, and of course ask further questions here.
You should usually not have a "dlls" folder under the app folder for a normal Installer package but there are many factors involved (private standard DLLs, Reg-Free COM, etc.). Yes, the dependencies get included (unless you exclude them). They should each have a property that determines where they install on the target systems.
You also have a number of components in that list that are either not redistributable this way because they are OS-dependent system components, MDAC components, or not licensed for redist (fm20.dll for example).
Sadly this is an example of the type of package that can lead directly to DLL Hell for your users' systems. Fixing this can mean researching every MS component in MS KB articles to determine what can or should be redistributed and how.
Deployment can be a messy business to get right.