I am trying to set up an automatic uninstaller for a program. basically I want the program to uninstall after a certain time has passed (lets say 1 year).
Is there any way I could do this? It would basically be a trial version of the software.
Sorry for not being specific about this but i just want some options on how I could do this easily.
Thank You in advance for your responses and sorry for my bad English.
I have never seen such a design. I suppose you could use a scheduled Windows task, but why do this? You can just have the application expire after a year and offer a button on launch to kick off the uninstaller? It can launch the uninstall asynchronously and shut down the application right away.
I have also never seen such a design, likely because it fails to consider several issues, namely how do you keep users from:
reinstalling it?
installing it on another machine, or on a VM with snapshots?
restoring a hard drive backup over it?
killing the uninstallation?
Software licensing is hard to get right. I would recommend using a third-party licensing package that offers trial licensing. I would avoid trying to roll your own solution, as it will likely take you a lot of time to develop and be ineffective nonetheless. Picking the right product for this depends on first answering some questions, though:
How a. skilled and how b. determined will the adversaries be who are costing you the most amount of financial loss? That is determined by:
How much money will you lose if you don't protect it? This should determine the next question, which is:
What is your budget for software protection? It should be less than the amount you would lose without it. This should include the next question, which is:
How many hours do you want to invest to get this working?
It sounds to me like you want an automated wrapper that will work with precompiled applications / installers, as opposed to using an SDK you must integrate into your code.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have used InstallAware and InstallShield before, and they are pretty difficult to work with and when something goes wrong it is very difficult to find and resolved the issue.
My question is why can't we use a Windows application written using C# to do this.
I understand that .Net framework may not be installed on the destination computer, so I wonder why no one has ever used this architecture:
I will create a simple installer using IntallSiheld(or any other similar tool) to just install .Net Framework and after that extracts and runs my own Windows application which I have written using C# in elevated mode. My application will run a Wizard with Back and Next button and I will take care of everything in it (copying files, creating and starting Windows Services, adding registry values, creating firewall extensions etc.)
Has anyone ever done this, and is there anything that prevents people from doing this?
In essence: don't try to re-invent the wheel. Use an existing deployment tool and stay with your day job :-). There are many such tools available. See links below.
And below, prolonged, repetitive musing:
Redux: IMHO and with all due respect, if I may say so, making your own installer software is reinventing the wheel for absolutely no gain whatsoever I am afraid. I believe you will "re-discover" the complexities found by others who have walked the path that is involved in deployment as you create your own installer software and find that software can be quick to make, but very hard to perfect. In the process you will expend lots of effort trying to wrap things up - and "the last meter is very long" as you curse yourself dealing with trifles that take up your time at the expense of what would otherwise pay the bills. Sorting out the bugs in any toolkit for whatever technical feature, can take years or even decades. And no, I am not making it up. It is what all deployment software vendors deal with.
Many Existing Tools: there are many existing tools that implement such deployment functionality already - which are not based on Windows Installer (Inno Setup, NSIS, DeployMaster and heaps of other less known efforts):
There is a list of non-MSI installer software here.
There is another list of MSI-capable software here.
My 2 cents - if you do not like MSI, choose one of the free, non-MSI deployment tools. How to create windows installer.
Corporate Deployment: The really important point (for me) is that corporate deployment relies on standardized packaging formats - such as MSI - to allow reliable, remote management of your software's deployment. Making your own installer will not impress any system administrators or corporate deployment specialists (at least until you sort out years of bugs and deficiencies). They want standardized format that they know how to handle (that does not imply that they are that impressed with existing deployment technology). Doing your deployment with standardized deployment formats can get you corporate approval for your software. If you make a weird deployment format that does unusual things on install that can't be easily captured and deployed on a large scale your software is head-first out of any large corporation. No mercy - for real. These are busy environments and you will face little understanding for your unusual solution.
"File-Pushers": Those of us who push files around for a living know that the field of deployment is riddled with silly problems that quickly kill your productiveness in other endeavors - the ones that make you stand out in your field - your day job. Deployment is a high profile, low status endeavor - and we are not complaining. It is just what it is: a necessity that is harder to deal with than you might think. Just spend your time more wisely is what I would conclude.
Complexity: Maybe skim the section "The Complexity of Deployment" here: Windows Installer and the creation of WiX. It is astonishing to deal with all the silly bugs that happen in deployment. It is not just a file copy, though it might be easy to think it is. And if it happens to be just a file copy, then there are existing tools that do the job. Free ones too. See links above. And if you think deployment is only file-copy in general, then please skim this list of tasks a deployment task should be capable of supporting: What is the benefit and real purpose of program installation?
Will your home-grown package handle the following? (just some random thoughts)
A malware-infected terminal server PC in Korea with Unicode characters in the path?
Symbolic links and NTFS junction points paths?
A laptop which shuts itself off in the middle of your file copy because it is out of battery?
Out of disk space situations? What about disk errors? And copy timeouts?
What about reboot requirements? For in-use files or some other reason. How are they to be handled? What if the system is in a reboot pending state and you need to detect it before kicking off your install?
How will you reliably install, configure and start and stop services?
How will you support uninstall and cleanup for your application?
Security software which flags your unknown, unrecognized, non-standard package a security threat and quarantines it? How would you begin to deal with this? Who do you contact to get into the good graces of a "recognized binary" for elevation?
Non-standard NTFS permissioning (ACLs) and NT Privileges? How do you detect it and degrade gracefully when you get permission denied? (for whatever reason).
Deployment of necessary runtimes for your application to work? (has been done by many others before). Download of the lastest runtimes if your embedded ones are out of date? Etc...
Provide a standardized way to extract files from your installation binary?
Provide help and support for your setup binaries for users who try to use them?
Etc... This was just a random list of whatever came to mind quickly. There are obviously many issues.
This was a bit over the top for what you asked, but don't be fooled to think deployment is something you can sort out a solution for in a few hours. And definitely don't take the job promising to do so - if that is what you are being asked. Just my two cents.
The above issues, and many others, are what people discover they have to handle when creating deployment software - for all but the most trivial deployments. Don't waste your time - use some established tool.
Transaction: If you are working in a corporation and just need your files to your testers, you can deploy using batch files for that matter - if you would like to. But you have to support it, and I guarantee you it will take a lot of your time. What do you do when the batch file failed half-way through due to a network error, and your testers are testing files that are inconsistent? Future deployment technologies may be better for such light-weight tasks. Perhaps the biggest feature of a deployment tool is to report whether the deployment completed successfully or not, and to log the errors and to roll the machine back to a stable state if something failed. Windows Installer does a lot of this work for you.
Distribution: A lot of people feel they can "just replicate my build folder to the user's computers". The complexities involved here are many. There is network involved, and network can never be assumed to be reliable, you need lots of error handling here. Then there is the issue of transactions: when do you know when the computer is in a stable state and should stop replicating. How often do you replicate, only on demand? How do you deal with the few computers that failed to replicate. How do you tell the users? These are distribution issues. Corporations have huge tools such as SCCM to deal with all these error conditions. Trying to re-implement all these checks, logging and features will take a long time. In the end you will have re-created an existing distribution system. Full circle. And how do you do inventory of your computers when there is no product registered as installed since only a batch file or script ran? And if you start replicating a lot of packages, how many times do you scan each file to determine if they are up to date? How much network traffic do you want to create? Where does it end? The answer: I guess transactions must be implemented with full logging and error tracking and rollback. Then you are full circle to a distribution system like I mentioned above and a supported package format as well.
This "just replicate my build folder to my users" ideas somehow remind me of this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_distributed_computing. Not a 100% match, but the issues are reminiscent. When networking is involved, things start to become very unpredictable and you need logging, error control, transactions, rollback, network communication, etc... We have re-discovered large scale deployment - the beast that it is.
Network: and let's say you want to replicate your build folder to 10000 desktop machines in your enterprise. How do you kick off the replication? Do you start all replications at once and take down the trading floor of the bank as file replication takes over the whole network like a DDOS attack? Sorry - it is getting out of hand - please pardon the lunacy - but it really is upsetting that this replication approach is seen as viable for large scale deployment with current technology approaches. Built-in Windows features could help, but still need to be tested properly. You need scheduling, queuing, caching, regional distribution shares, logging, reporting / inventory, and God knows what else that a packaging / deployment system gives you already. And re-implementing it will be a pain train of brand new bugs to deal with.
Maybe we one day will see automatic output folder replication based on automatic package generation which really works via an intelligent and transacted distribution system. Many corporate teams are trying, and by using existing tools they get closer with standard package formats used. I guess current cloud deployment systems are moving in this direction with online repositories and easy, interactive installation, but we still need to package our software intelligently. It will be interesting to see what the future holds and what new problems result for packaging and distribution in the age of the cloud.
As we pull files directly from online repositories on-demand we will see a bunch of new problems? Malware, spoofing and injection? (already problematic, but could get worse). Remote files deleted without warning (to get rid of vulnerable releases that should no longer be used - leaving users stranded)? Certificate and signature problems? Firewalls & proxy issues? Auto-magic updates with unfortunate bugs hitting everyone immediately and unexpectedly? And the fallacies of the network and other factors as linked to above. Beats me. We will see.
OK, it became a rant as usual - and that last paragraph is heading over board with speculation (and some of the issues already apply to current deployment). Sorry about that. But do try to get management approval to use an existing packaging & deployment solution is my only advice.
Links:
Stefan Kruger's Installsite.org twitter feed: https://twitter.com/installsite
Choosing a deployment tool:
How to create windows installer
What installation product to use? InstallShield, WiX, Wise, Advanced Installer, etc
Windows Installer and the creation of WiX
WiX quick start tips
More on dark.exe (a bit down the page)
Update: 24 Mar 2011:
Just wanted to add that I've had a look at WIX now and it looks great, I can see very clearly now how to get a nice sleek MSI based installer done that should do everything we need. Thanks very much for the assistance, much appreciated.
We deploy a product which has both server and client components. The client is currently a VB6 application (yes, yes I know...) and it uses an InstallShield installer to produce an EXE that we give to the client to go and deploy on all their workstations.
That's all fine and dandy when there are ten, but when there are 100 they understandably get a bit grumpy :)
Some of our customers are using Microsoft System Centre to automate their software roll-outs and they have asked us to get our client compatible with this so that they can deploy automatically.
I have no experience with System Centre, so while i'm trying to build up my own experience I thought i'd drop a question in here and see if some of you experts could help accelerate the process.
Basically, what do I need to produce in order to have an installer that is good for deployment automatically via Microsoft System Centre?
I think i've found out so far that it needs to be an EXE, an MSI or an MSP.
As I've said, our current installer is an EXE - however it has a fairly standard wizard installer that pops up graphical stuff and asks the user to click next a couple of times. Is that causing a problem? Or should it just work? Or, is it a case of adjusting the InstalAnywhere script to make it fully automated (the UI doesn't really need to be there) ?
I should add that I don't actually know if anyone has tried this and whether the customer question is purely "let me know if it will work" or if they've tried it and it doesn't work... I'm probably heavily leaning towards the latter because I know at one site they've got what seem like knowledgeable IT that are keen to just try things and see what happens rather than constantly waiting for approvals etc.
Lastly a few things off the top of my head...
App is written in VB6.
InstallShield is quite old, i'm currently finding out what the version number is and will update the ticket as required.
Target platforms are Windows client, currently up to XP officially but it does work ok on Windows 7 and Vista.
I'm happy to use a totally different installer if that's the best answer, we're not tied to InstallShield at all, it's only really there for legacy.
Please let me know if I can provide any more detail!
Matt.
This question is very broad so there isn't one answer I can give. Basically I spent 15 years experience writing installers and 2 of those years were on the other side of the house at Continental Airlines ( 18,000 seat AD forest ) receiving installers from companies like yours.
Our goal was to be able to silently provision and service software through SMS. Ideally we prefer to receive MSI's because they are in a standardized format and are customizable through the use of transforms. When we would receive non MSI packages we would typically "repackage" them into MSI format. This is a process in which the package is ran through snapshotting / capture tools and the whole thing is reverse engineered and refactored into MSI.
But we didn't always do this. On a (rare) occasion we would receieve a higher quality then average EXE that was 'good enough'. The goals are clear: We must be able to install and uninstall the EXE from the command line with 0 touch by a human. We must also be able to script any configuration settings such as database server name.
If we could do those things and the impact seemed low risk, we'd accept it as is. Otherwise we went about our business of taking it on ourselves.
On occasion I would create an installer that was so clean I would think "Man, I wish ABC Software Company had done this themselves." ( Of course I wouldn't have had a job... ) or "I wish we could partner with ABC to contribute this install back to them for everyone else to share in the benefits."
Maybe one of your sites has a really good install guy and you could work something like that out on the cheap. Otherwise I suggest learning MSI and it's best practices and doing a rewrite of your installer.
It was a great experience being at Continental and I now make sure that all of my companies installs won't bring such pain to their customers.
Microsoft's "Windows Installer CleanUp Utility" could be used to help fix broken installations of MSI-installer based products. When the installer failed in some strange way and left corrupt data behind, so bad that even Add/Remove Programs couldn't help, you could often fix things by running this utility and then running the application's installer again.
I just discovered that Microsoft announced a couple weeks ago that they were discontinuing this utility. They didn't merely say "we're not supporting it anymore"; they seemingly removed it from their site entirely.
I have to support a Windows program for a whole bunch of users. Given the number of users, every so often something will go wrong, and this program has been invaluable for me, as a last-ditch line of defense.
I know I could point customers to some third party site that has a cached copy of it, but this seems dangerous (malware potential and such).
So, are there any replacement products? Or, if not, how can I myself do whatever it is that this program did?
To be clear, I'm not asking for help like "how do I programatically modify the registry". I can do that fine. But I need to know what in the registry needs to be modified.
Thanks in advance.
Windows Installer CleanUp utility was never intended to be used in the wild. It was only meant to be used by software developers. If you occasionally have end users needing to use WCU you have some serious installer quality issues that should be addressed.
WCU only removes the Windows Instaleller meta data and doesn't actually uninstall any software. This leaves the machine in a very dirty state. These days with test labs becoming virtualized there's no reason to have this tool anymore. You just roll back to a prior snapshot and keep on working.
I've seen all kinds of online forums full of users who think they know what they are doing ( and don't ) suggest using WCU to solve various problems so in the end Microsoft decided to try to get the horse back in the barn.
I have old copies of WCU archived in my CM system so if you'd like me to generate checksums to help you determine if you are getting a good copy just let me know.
The cleanup utility was a wrapper around the command line utility msizap.exe, described here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa370523%28VS.85%29.aspx#1
I have secured the budget to upgrade the individual workstations and latops. While newer, bigger screens were welcomed with enthusiasm, the thought of re-installation tools and settings caused most of them to blanch and I got one "Do I really have to?".
How much downtime do you usually have when you move to a new machine?
Do you employ tools or script to set up your dev environment, tools, db's, debuggers etc.specifically for a windows environment?
Is there a standard image that you keep and then let devs move in and tweak the machine as necessary?
My company essentially virtualized in order to stop wasting so much time with upgrades/system failures.
Whenever a desktop/laptop failed, we'd have to spend a better part of a day fixing it and reloading the software.
So, we went out, bought iMacs for everyone and loaded Parallels (a VMware like product for OSX) on them. Then we made a standard dev image for everyone, and just copied it to everyone's machines.
Essentially, if anyone's configuration got messed, we just loaded in a fresh image and kept on truckin'. Saved a lot of time.
Some additional benefits:
When new software is out, we just make a new image and distribute it. Not OS re-installs or anything like that.
If hardware changes, doesn't matter, just move the image.
You can run multiple os's concurrently for testing
You can take "snapshots" in your current image and revert if you really messed something up.
Multiple builds on the same machine...since you can run multiple os's.
Surprisingly the overhead of a virtualized system is quite low.
We only run the software on a real machine for performance tuning/testing purposes.
One day is generally enough for upgrades. I do keep digital copies of VS.NET so much easier to install.
When it comes to other tools generally it's just better to go to websites and install the latest version.
Also it's a good idea to install tools whenever you need instead of trying to install everything at the same time.
The last time I upgraded to a new machine, I think it took about 4 hours to get most of the necessary tools reinstalled. Over time, I've had to re-install quite a few more tools, but I think it's worth it.
If you can get a ghost/image of the default tool set (Visual Studio 2003-2008, Eclipse, NetBeans, or whatever you're using), and all the major service packs, that would help a lot with the initial setup.
I think the downtime is definitely worth it, a new, faster machine will make anyone more productive.
You can have 0 downtime by having both machines available. You will not have as much productivity.
This depends on the number of tools needed by the development team. Tools such as Rational Software Architect can take hours to install on their own. The exercise of having the developers list the applications they need before moving in can help you optimize strategies to deploy effectively. Both machines should be available for a fixed period of time and having them available can allow develoers to both work and kick of long running installs at the same time.
Creating a standard image based on the list provided to you can improve efficiency. Having the relvant software on a share could also let them cherry pick as needed and give the development team the feeling that they can go back as necessary.
Tools to assist in catpuring user settings exist. I have only ever had experience with Doctor Mover. If you have 100 or more developers to move it may be worth the cost. I can't complain too much but it wasn't perfect.
I have never had a problem with just getting a list of all the software a particular users uses. In fact I have never found the base install to be much of an issue. The parts I tend to spend the most time on are re-configuring all of the users custom settings (very common with developers I find). This is where it is very valuable to have the old machine around for awhile so that the user can at a minimum remote-desktop to it and see how they have things set up.
Depending on how your team works, I would highly recommend having every user receiving a new computer get the latest source tree from your source control repository rather than by copying entire directories. And, I would also recommend doing that before actually sending the old workstation elsewhere or even disconnecting it.
One of the great things about tools like CVS and SVN is that it is quite easy for developers to end up with an unofficial "personal branch" from things that are not properly checked in, merged, etc.
While it will cost time to deal with the shift if things are not properly synchronized, it is an invaluable opportunities to catch those things before they come to haunt you later.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I recently had to struggle with one installation project (which uses most popular product for creating installations: InstallShield) to make it work for product upgrades (migrating from one version to another). In the end it turned out that I needed to use one long package code but was using some other. It wasted my 8 hours (testing and debugging installers is a pain).
Now if I think about it, once you are done all the hard part of coding, all you want to is that correct applications, libraries are copied to target computer and user just runs it. Period. This apparently simple task normally turns out to be a tricky one and "being closed to finish date" makes in even harder.
Don't you think deploying a product is made damn difficult on windows which should have been simpler? (or installer really deserves that much attention and I am just being crazy about it?)
Have you ever used simpler deployment schemes such as "copy the folder to wherever you like and run the exe. When you want to remove it, just delete the folder!"? Was it effective and made things simpler?
Painful as it is you need to wrestle with the windows installer for the benefit of your customers. Otherwise you will need to do a lot more work to
Handle situations where for some reason an error occurs during the installation. What do you do next?
Handle issues like security. What if the installing user does not have rights to particular folders/registry keys?
Correctly cleanup after installation
Patching and patch management
Performing additional tasks -- registering COM objects, creating databases, creating shortcuts, creating an un-installation shotcut and so on
Installing prerequisites
Letting users choose which features to install
Your own custom scripts to solve all these problems eventually become a bigger problem than the installation itself!
I recommend that you check out Wix. It's not exactly child's play but it gets the job done. If you install Votive as a visual studio add in you get intellisense to help you strucutre the tags correctly. With the help file you can create pretty functional flexible installations
I don't think you'll see too many disagreements here, especially regarding MSI. I think one thing to keep in mind is to watch the way many programs are using MSI files these days. Displaying UI dialogs and making complex configuration choices with an MSI is very weak simply due to the way Windows Installer was designed, so I've noticed a lot of programs being split into a bunch of baby MSIs that are installed with the minimal UI by a parent setup program. The SQL Server 2008 setup wizard does this. UPS WorldShip does this. And Paint.NET does this, too--the wizard you see is a Windows Forms app, and it launches msiexec itself (you can see the minimal UI of the Windows Installer pop up on top of the white wizard window), passing any configuration parameters as property arguments to msiexec.
A common scenario where this comes up is where someone is tasked with building an installer for an application that has both server and client counterparts. If the user chooses the server option, then they may or may not want a new database to be installed, which means installing SQL Server. But you can't just install SQL Server while you're in the middle of your own installation because Windows Installer won't let you do that. So a frequent solution is to write an app that displays a wizard that allows the user to configure all of the setup options, and then your app launches the MSI files as needed for SQL Server, your server application, and your client application in the minimal UI mode; basically, eschewing the "features" aspect of Windows Installer entirely and moving it up to the MSI level. 4.5's multiple-package installations seems to be a step further in this direction. This format is also especially useful if you also need to loop in non-MSI installers from third parties as part of your installation process, like installing a printer driver for some bizarre point of sale printer.
I'll also agree that Windows Installer lacks built-in support for common deployment scenarios. It's meant for when setup isn't XCOPY, but they seem to miss the fact that setup usually isn't just "files + shortcuts + registry keys," either. There are no built-in actions for setting up IIS Web sites, registering certificates, creating and updating databases, adding assemblies to the GAC, and so on. I guess they take the opinion that some of this should happen on first run rather than being a transactional part of the install. The freely available tooling and documentation has been awful--flat out awful--for the better part of a decade. Both of these issues are largely addressed by the WiX project and DTF (which lets you finally use managed code custom actions), which is why we're all so grateful to Rob Mensching and others' work on that project.
I've had the same experience. Installation can quickly suck up your time as you go down the rabbit hole of "Oh God, I guess I have to become an expert in this too." I second the idea that's it's best to address it early on in your project and keep it maintained as part of your build process. This way, you can help avoid that scenario of having developed a practically uninstallable product. (Trac was an example of this for a while, requiring to track down specific versions of weird Python libraries.)
(I could go on about how Windows Installer sometimes decides to use my slow, external USB hard drive as a place to decompress its files, how it seems to sit there doing nothing for minutes on end on computers that have had lots of MSI installs on them, and how that progress bar resetting itself a bazillion times during a single install is the most idiotic thing I have ever seen, but I'll save those rants for another day. =)
My two cents; please note that I really just know enough about Windows Installer to do damage, but this is my assessment coming from a small business developer just trying to use it. Good luck!
Well, its a lot easier if you build your installer first, make it part of your build system, and let it grow with your project.
I agree, the windows installer drives me insane. But there are a lot of situations that xcopy just doesn't solve. Sometimes you want to install for multiple users, not just the current user. Sometimes you have to register COM objects. Sometimes you have to make a whole bunch of changes to the system, such as registering services to run at startup, connecting to network servers, etc. Sometimes you have users that can't use a command prompt. And you always want to be able to role the whole thing back when something fails halfway through.
Was the whole MSI database approach the best way of doing it? I'm not sure. Would I rather pound nails into my head than write another line of WiX code? Probably. But you have to admit, it does a good job of doing everything you could ever possibly want. And when it doesn't there is always the CustomAction option.
Really, what I would like to see, is better documentation (really, what is a type 50 action? How about giving it a name?) and a lot more easy-to-usurp templates.
And the WiX users group alias does a good job of answering questions.
You should read RobMen's blog. He does a good job explaining why things are the way they are. He has done a lot of thinking (more than any human should) about the problems of setup.
Have you looked at NSIS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullsoft_Scriptable_Install_System ?
And 1: Yes, 2: No
Personally, I mostly agree with #Conrad and #John Saunders. I wrote about this topic a long time ago on my old blog. I think #jeffamaphone has a point about the Windows Installer complexity (and my over attention to setup, in general ) but I believe the Windows Installer is still the best all round option for installation on Windows.
"Once you have done all the hard part of coding", you haven't done a thing if all your hard work doesn't install. Installers need to be built and tested on every nightly build, every night, almost from day one. You need to test that the installer can be built and run, and you need to verify the installation.
Otherwise, who cares how much hard work you've done coding - nobody will ever see your work if it doesn't install!
Note that this also applies to XCOPY.
Another thing: what is your QA testing if they're not testing what your installer installs? You have to test what the customer will get!
For exactly the reasons you state, we've done internal releases, handled by the dev team by copying the required files, and then done the rest of the setup using scripts and our own utilities.
However, for end users you have to have some kind of hand holding wizard, I've used the MS installer from within VS and found it confusing and clunky. After that experience I've avoided the pain by getting others to do the installation step. Can anyone recommend a good .Net installer?
I use Installshield and if you are not trying to do anything too fancy (I why would you) then it's pretty straighforward - set initial setting, select files, set up shortcuts and create setup.exe.
All future updates I handle inside my code - much more convinient to the user