cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
bsimpson1
Level 2

Converting Visual Studio Deployment Project to LE and CustomActions

I have converted a Visual Studio 2010 Deployment Project to the LE version. I can find no Property dialogs within LE that allow me to modify Custom Actions taken from the original deployment file within LE.

e.g. I have an installer C# class that is called on "After Install" in the Microsoft Deployment project which utilises properties set, such as CustomActionData = /sourceDir="[SourceDir]\ "

Examining the result of the conversion in the projects .isl file I can see definitions for these entries such as the above example, yet Installshield LE does not give access me to this capability?

Is there equivalent LE Custom Actions that I can use, or am I missing something?

The only way I can see to fix/change this is to edit the XML entries in the isl file, which appears to work, to get the install to work as before I converted to use LE.

Essentially I want the Installer class to run at the end of the setup process, and refer to the "SourceDir" values defined in CustomActionData.


Regards
Bill Simpson
0 Kudos
(2) Replies
chiranjeevi
Level 7 Flexeran
Level 7 Flexeran

Hello,

The Limited edition of InstallShield has very limited custom action support. Although it has support for executable file, VBScript, and JScript custom actions, it does not have support for MSI DLL custom actions. It also does not have support for scheduling custom actions during some sequences of an installation.

Please kindly refer installshield limited edition help library for more information on using different types custom actions to achieve the required behavior.

Regards,
Chiranjeevi
0 Kudos
bsimpson1
Level 2

In other words Microsoft have let us down by expecting us to use an inferior package. I already pay a vast fortune for MSDN subscription.

If LE does not support conversion of Microsoft Deployment packages, Tten why should I pay more to upgrade to InstallShield Express or whatever....

No doubt this was some monopoly/trust suit compromise, with little thought to the existing developers.

I'm off to the beach....
0 Kudos