This website uses cookies. By clicking Accept, you consent to the use of cookies. Click Here to learn more about how we use cookies.
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
- Revenera Community
- :
- InstallShield
- :
- InstallShield Forum
- :
- RemoveRegistry & Val0009
Subscribe
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Mar 31, 2008
09:40 AM
RemoveRegistry & Val0009
- Why is InstallShield not so intelligent to automatically populate the RemoveRegistry table (minor upgrade)?
- When I insert records in the RemoveRegistry table, the warnings (warning Val0009: A registry entry has been removed from the component 'MyPrint'. This key must be added to the RemoveRegistry table, otherwise it will be orphaned by an upgrade. '0|interface\{02004c41-4a8f-49cf-ace2-187e27ff7b10}\proxystubclsid32|') stills remain after building a minor upgrade.
Example: RemoveRegistry, 0, interface\{02004c41-4a8f-49cf-ace2-187e27ff7b10}, -, MyPrint
Any ideas reaaallllly appreciated.
(7) Replies
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Apr 01, 2008
01:50 AM
Somebody out there....?
There should be at least one guru who could answer my questions?
There should be at least one guru who could answer my questions?
Not applicable
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Apr 01, 2008
04:28 AM
I would say that the table in question is not automatically populated because it's likely COM data that you might not actually want to remove.
However, did you follow the instructions in the below KB article about authoring that entry?
http://knowledge.macrovision.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=Q108846&sliceId=1&docTypeID=DT_ERRDOC_1_1&dialogID=8070488&stateId=0
Specifically, it doesn't look like you included the '-' sign in your entry.
However, did you follow the instructions in the below KB article about authoring that entry?
http://knowledge.macrovision.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=Q108846&sliceId=1&docTypeID=DT_ERRDOC_1_1&dialogID=8070488&stateId=0
Specifically, it doesn't look like you included the '-' sign in your entry.
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Apr 01, 2008
04:50 AM
bryanwolf wrote:
I would say that the table in question is not automatically populated because it's likely COM data that you might not actually want to remove.
A minor upgrade refers to an upgrade item which is the orginal msi-file. So Installshield knowns the componentes which will change and also the registry-information to update. At least there should be somewhere a checkbox to autofill the RemoveRegistry table. I don't have the time to insert 300 lines in this table.
However, did you follow the instructions in the below KB article about authoring that entry?
http://knowledge.macrovision.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=Q108846&sliceId=1&docTypeID=DT_ERRDOC_1_1&dialogID=8070488&stateId=0
Specifically, it doesn't look like you included the '-' sign in your entry.
Yes I already read this page, without success. Before inserting 300 lines, it should at least work with one single entry. Is my "syntax" correct for my entry (I inserted the '-', see attachment.
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Apr 07, 2008
02:32 AM
Still waiting for the guru-answer.....
Not applicable
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Apr 07, 2008
08:41 AM
A minor upgrade refers to an upgrade item which is the orginal msi-file. So Installshield knowns the componentes which will change and also the registry-information to update. At least there should be somewhere a checkbox to autofill the RemoveRegistry table. I don't have the time to insert 300 lines in this table.
A checkbox makes sense, but the overarching point is that we don't know whether you want that information removed or not. Removing COM data from the machine without some kind of confirmation or agreement from the developer could cause a lot of issues.
Your entry looks good to me from what I can tell. I would say that the Val0009 is likely just too specific.
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Apr 23, 2008
11:33 AM
Have exactly the same problem. I'm tying to build a minor upgrade with a COM object that has changed. I get the above error and can't get Installshield to remove the registry entries.
If I apply my patch, my COM object is not properly registered and makes my application crash.
I tried with a few manual RemoveRegistry entries an noticed that it only works on 6 of the 62. Can't see any logic why some are and others aren't removed.
I like the checkbox idea as well. Additionally it could be handy if entries in the Registry table could be quickly copied to the RemoveRegistry table.
Problem not solved yet, any help is welcome.
If I apply my patch, my COM object is not properly registered and makes my application crash.
I tried with a few manual RemoveRegistry entries an noticed that it only works on 6 of the 62. Can't see any logic why some are and others aren't removed.
I like the checkbox idea as well. Additionally it could be handy if entries in the Registry table could be quickly copied to the RemoveRegistry table.
Problem not solved yet, any help is welcome.
- Mark as New
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎Apr 25, 2008
05:03 AM
As we are working with VB & VC++ ActiveX-DLLs, people have the possibility in VB6 to set the compatibility to "Project compatibility", "Binary compatibility" or "No compatibility". I made some tests and find out that there are always changes to the registry (CLSID, IID or LIBID). As the DLL's changes sometimes, the work to fill out the RemoveRegistry-table is quite too huge.
So I decided to clear the "COM Extract at build"-option on all DLL-components and checked the "Self Register"-option on components file level.
Works fine.
So I decided to clear the "COM Extract at build"-option on all DLL-components and checked the "Self Register"-option on components file level.
Works fine.