We were hoping to create a setup project which would allow for a pick-n-mix approach to which files were included for each local client installation.
Basically we've got a core setup.exe which we only want to build once, and which contains most of the product. But for each client there's a custom DLL which fits their solution. The custom DLL is loaded dynamically at runtime by the software and that's working fine. The problem is in the setup.
Of course we could 1) write an individual custom Setup.exe for each client too 2) keep a single setup.exe and customise it each time we want to do a build for the customer
But both those approaches are problematic.
For reasons too complicated to go into, the below approach is going to be the safest and most straightforward:
Maintain a single setup project
add all the custom DLLs to the setup project but set them to PackageAs=Loose (and also Vital=False)
then, every time we want to rollout the install files to the customer we send the setup files minus all the custom DLLs except his own
Our problem is that this approach falls down when you run the setup.exe on the client. Everything's fine except that the setup.exe still knows about all the DLLs you've quietly removed from the file system for this customer. And the installer starts shouting if it doesn't find all the files where it expects to find them:
Actually, this isn't a problem because you can hit Continue and then everything works fine.
Except that actually it is a problem because if you're selling to Pepsi (we're not, but say we were) you sort of don't want the installer to moan that it can't find CocaCola.foo.dll in the middle of its install.
We almost want an additional setting of Extremely Loose for the PackageAs field so that the installer knows not to even worry if it doesn't find the file.
Is there a solution within our existing approach without having to learn a third-party installer?
It sounds like your optional components should be created as Merge Modules and then you'd need a specific installer created that includes only certain modules. It sounds like you have some client specific libraries you don't want exposed to your other clients. Of course this means you'll need a build for each client, but that is something that could be automated.
Related
Over the years our InstallShield code has grown un-manageable and messy. We're about to design an InstallShield 2015 installation from scratch for a new major release, and I was wondering if there's any way to automatically capture a set of system changes to use as a cleaner starting point for developing a new install package. Ideally, I would like to turn on some capturing software, install the oldest release from which we support an upgrade, install the latest service packs, and then apply the manual changes that will get the new release running on the system. Then I would turn off the capturing software, and it would provide an InstallShield project pre-loaded with all the files and registry entries (GAC changes, .NET assemblies, etc) that were created as part of that install. Then I could add steps to delete those that we no longer needed and do some other clean-up and refinements. Does such a thing exist?
Yes, this is called a repackager most often, in the enterprise world where sys admin and packagers prepare applications for deployment on the company machines.
Flexera has one that can create a project for InstallShield, but it is sold together with their AdminStudio solution, which is not cheap.
We (at Caphyon) have a repackager included in Advanced Installer (the architect edition) which also requires you purchase license. And of course the generated project will be compatible only with Advanced Installer, where you can configure your installers as you wish.
I think there is also a free repackager, AppDeploy from Dell, but I never used it, so I don't know how accurate it is and if you can use the results created into InstallShield or if it generates directly an MSI.
If you started looking more careful you will probably find other repackager tools, but you should know that building such a tool is not an easy task so choose carefully. Also probably only the one from AdminStudio will be able to generate a project that can be read by InstallShield.
If you already have the source projects from the older editions I would personally not try using a repackager. Instead I would go for cleaning up all the configurations which you do not understand and re-build them from scratch.
A repackager as good as it can be still has some problems. It can capture incomplete data, for example if you have a custom action that runs different code based on the OS where the installer is running the repackager will capture only its effects on the OS where you run it. On another one might run differently and have another output.
Also if your installer has prerequisites and you run the repackager on a machine where those prerequisites are installed then the repackager will not capture anything related to this, so by accident you can forget to include required prerequisites in the new package.
There is also the things like meta-information which few repackagers can detect. For example files associations which are actually a set of file and registry entries connected together or environment variables, scheduled tasks, etc...
Most repackagers capture all this data and simply show it to you as configuration files and registry entries, instead of creating the correct entities in your projects, i.e. files associations, environment variables or scheduled tasks in their correspondent views.
Our application is deployed to the target machine with an msi file. All works nicely. Our tester has gone through his plan, and one of the tests requires deleting the application's configuration file. The application is designed to alert the user with a dialog on startup saying "missing config". However, what happens is that - somehow! - the software starts the installer again and retrieves the missing file from the msi! Which is nice, but not what we want. How do we disable that behaviour?
without going into much depth of the windows installer mechanics (if you interested in that there a plenty of articles about this), the shortcut of the software is probably advertised, which means the windows installer checks if everything is in its place before the software is started.
if you can edit the msi, make the shortcut non advertised.
if you can't, install it with DISABLEADVTSHORTCUTS
e.g. msiexec /i myMsi.msi DISABLEADVTSHORTCUTS=1
please note that this is only a quick (and dirty) workaround,
to fix this proper you need to understand the whole windows installer advertising (also called repair or self resiliency) mechanism.
but explaining all the causes and the mechanism of the repair is far beyond this answer and there are quite some articles and posts about that on the internet (and especially on MSDN and stackoverflow)
There is a more correct answer to this, and it is NOT DISABLEADVTSHORTCUTS. You set the component id to null in the MSI file to prevent repair of that individual file. See ComponentId comments here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa368007(v=vs.85).aspx
Edit the MSI file with Orca to delete the Componenty ID, and write an uninstall custom action to delete the file at uninstall if it's there.
In addition, that's a redundant test. Windows will restore that file for you if it's missing, so the idea that you need a test to notify that it's missing is pointless. The true test should be that Windows will restore the file if it's lost, and your app needs to do potentially nothing about the missing file.
You don't mention what tool you are using to make your MSI but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Visual Studio Deployment Projects (.VDRPOJ).
One of the (many) horrible things about this tool was that it fails to expose the foundational concept of components. Instead it makes every file a key file of it's own component and hides the existence of the component from you. I say 'was' because Microsoft killed this project type in VS. There are around 50k people complaining on UserVoice to bring this tool back and I'm guessing that 49,990 of them don't know what a key path is.
Windows Installer has a concept called the component rules and each component has a keypath. The keypath teaches MSI how to handle repair scenarios. But your tool has to allow you to be able to control this to make it work.
Windows Installer is functioning exactly the way it's supposed to function. You just aren't up to speed on what that is.
However, if you want to ignore Windows Installer best practices and continue using the tool you use today, the trick is to install the app.config file as a different file. Then have the application copy the file to the real file name on run. Windows Installer won't service what it didn't install.
Several answers have been provided that can work:
You can install the file with a blank guid. Then you need to remove it on uninstall using the RemoveFile feature. You will also run into issues if you want to replace it during an upgrade. Could be tricky at times.
You can disable the advertised shortcut(s), but this affects too much in my opinion.
Finally you can use my suggestion to install a separate non-advertised shortcut to use to launch the application. Such a shortcut bypasses the self-repair check. It may still be invoked by other means such as missing file associations, COM registration or similar, but those are exception states.
However, my preference is that an application can start without a config file present, if at all possible. I always suggest a good startup routine with "internal defaults" available. The startup routine should also degrade gracefully if faced with any file system access denied conditions.
Most importantly you should place this config file in the userprofile so you can generate the file on first launch for the user in question. It can even be copied from a read-only copy in the main installation directory.
When you generate a file from internal defaults and put it in a userprofile location, the file will have no interference with Windows Installer at all. The issues that results is how to clean up user data on uninstall. I discussed this with Stefan Kruger (MSI MVP) at one point, and I agree with his notion that user data is indeed user data and should not be automatically dealt with by your installer at all. Leave it installed, and clean it up via system administrator tools if necessary - for example logon scripts.
Sorry if a similar question has been posed before. There are a lot of deployment questions but none seemed to address my problem.
Anyway. I'm working with asp.net, C# and using Visual Studio.
The Organization I'm working in is changing rapidly. There are a lot of projects coming in the pipeline that will require multiple code changes and iterative deployments over the next few months. While working, these changes are always 'on the forefront', so sometimes I have to code certain parts of the same program multiple times.
Since these projects are all staggered, I can't just make one sweeping change all at once; I have to deploy and redeploy the same program multiple times, using only the changes that are required for that deployment.
If this is confusing, here's a simple example:
Application is being used on an Intranet. This application calls our Database, using Driver A.
There are two environments, test and production.
Certain Stored procedures have to be called with parameters that register 'Test' to allow certain other applications to run even with bad data (for testing purposes).
When deploying applications, these stored procedures have to be modified, removing Test parameters
We have an Operating System upgrade, allowing us to move to a much faster Driver B, but requires changes to be made to the code to use Driver B.
So that's two wholly different deployments where some code must be changed for Deployment 1 and other code must be changed for Deployment 2.
Currently I'm just using notepad for an overall change list, regular debugging break points and a multitude of in-code comments, and then I manually slog through the code to make sure that everything is changed. With hundreds of thousands of lines of code over multiple files, classes, objects, etc. this gets pretty tedious, as well as there being a good chance of missing something (causing it to break) or pushing wrong changes (causing it to either break or allow bad data).
Is there a tool that could be used to help in this situation? Preferably one that I can discern what needs to change for Deployment A and what needs to change for Deployment B? I'm also open to hearing other schools of thought as well (tips are definitely accepted!)
Sure, I understand your problem.
I would suggest a couple of things
Installers : Why don't you think of installers, there are loads of installers i.e Install shield, Wix, MSI installer.
These installers will give you flexibilty to update files which you need to update, i.e. Full Control.
But you need to choose the best of them, I have worked around MSI and Wix a lot, so I know this can sort your problem, however its your call.
Publish : I haven't played around much with this, I have just done website publish. However I know it does wonders, so try it also.
This should be pretty simple, but I can't seem to get it. I have a setup project (VS2010) that packages a few dozen image files (along with my SQLite file) and copies them to the user's computer when the program is installed. As these are essentially "stock" images, it's ok if the user deletes them (there is functionality to do so from within the program.) However, after one or more of these images have been deleted, the next time the program starts it gives a "Windows installer" dialog box, and deletes all of the remaining data files!
What I think is happening is the program sees the missing files, assumes the installation has been corrupted, and tries to go into some kind of recovery/uninstall mode. I'd like to know how to indicate in the setup project that the files need to be installed, but may be removed by the user at any time.
I have tried several combinations of File properties, and nothing seems to do quite what I want, which is for my installer to put them where I say and never think about them again. Do I have to reinvent the wheel and do this through a custom action??
EDIT: Transitive and Vital had both been set to True. Setting them to False causes the program to re-add the deleted images back after it has been restarted! I'll probably go with a custom action if I don't get an answer.
When using a file association or advertised shortcut Windows Installer automatically checks if component key paths are missing. If a key path is not found, a repair is trigger to reinstall the component.
Most likely your installer repair process does something that removes the other files.
A solution is to not register your components with Windows Installer. This is done by using a null component GUID and it's not supported by Visual Studio setup projects (it is however supported by most of the other setup tools).
Another solution is to make sure that your image files are not key paths in their components. This is also not supported by Visual Studio.
If you want to use a setup authoring tool which offers more control, you can take a look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_installation_software
I have asked this exact question on the Flexara forum, but got no response up to today, so I want to ask it here.
We currently have a InstallScript project which runs fine. The resulting setup can be made unattended/silent fine.
In this setup we have some features and invoke a number of third-party installations (that are a prerequisite for running our software).
However, we have customers that want an MSI file and therefore we resorted to the Basic MSI project type.
The setup is made without too much hassle (I'm fairly new to InstallShield) and I can generate a .exe and .msi from this project.
However the only issue I have left is invoking one of the third-party installers.
That third-party installer (made with NSIS) on its turn invokes another installer which is MSI based.
This results in having error 1500 - the fact that you cannot run a msi type installation while another is running.
I've tried scheduling the CA (that are used to invoke the third-party installers) as the first action and as last, but no success.
Before resorting on the more unorthodox scenarios (like creating a task on Windows Task manager that runs after our installer finishes, or at the next reboot and forcing a reboot - which our customers don't like) or a scenario that we don't bundle the 'faulting' installer (we really like to be able to hand over a single intaller and not multiple), I'd thought I ask your input.
I've tried searching for solutions everywhere on the internet, but either I'm failing due to wrong keywords or I just didn't stumble on the right post yet.
Are there any options left for us to create a single MSI installer that is able to invoke this third-party installer (which invokes a msi installer on its turn)?
Since an EXE bootstrapper is not acceptable, there is only one solution:
store the prerequisite installers in Binary table of your MSI
create some custom actions which extract them from this table and launch them
schedule them in InstallUISequence, for example right before Progress dialog
use searches to detect if the prerequisites are installed or not
condition your custom actions with the search results
Basically, you need to launch them during the installation UI. It won't work if you launch them during InstallExecuteSequence.
I don't think the basic MSI project supports this, but it may be supported by more advanced project types. Other setup authoring tools offer direct support for this.
You can try InstallShield's "Chained .msi Package" feature.