I have two MSI packages, one if Office 2010/2013 x64 is installed and one for all 32bit Office editions. I have set up the conditions shown below, but I'm getting the opposite to what I was expecting.
Also, if I select Custom Installation it lets me select either 32 or 64bit installation. I need only the valid installation to be visible, or better still no option.
Unlike in the .msi world, where it may make sense to structure your .ism to separate 32-bit and 64-bit builds by features, I think it often doesn't make sense to separate features here. Instead I would suggest setting eligibility conditions on the packages. If you make your 64-bit package eligible only on 64-bit systems, or only when the 64-bit excel is present, it can only be installed if that condition is met. If you still want to separate them by features, I would make a user-selectable feature, with a hidden sub-feature for each variant you need to put features conditions on.
When you say you're getting backwards behavior, what are you seeing? I would expect the feature with the condition on the left to be selected by default on machines that lack both files; the one on the right to be selected on machines with either of the files. Is there anything in the /debuglog that indicates where it diverges from that expectation?
MichaelU wrote: Unlike in the .msi world, where it may make sense to structure your .ism to separate 32-bit and 64-bit builds by features, I think it often doesn't make sense to separate features here.
Thanks for the pointers and I will investigate further. I am a bit puzzled by this comment though. The whole reason I'm using Suite is that I thought you couldn't mix 32 and 64bit installations in an MSI. The reason being that you have to specify INSTALLDIR as either [ProgramFilesFolder] or [ProgramFiles64Folder] and Template Summary has to specify the platform, Intel or Intel64.
MichaelU wrote: When you say you're getting backwards behavior, what are you seeing?
The opposite to what you would expect from those conditions. (I had labelled the images excel32 [first/left image] and excel64 [second/right] but that seemed to have been lost.)
To clarify the comment about separating features in a .ism, that has to do with people who want one .ism which they can build (based on release flags, etc.) into either a 32-bit of a 64-bit .msi. In those cases it makes a lot of sense to separate into features the items that you'll have to exclude from one build or the other. You're absolutely right that you can't make one .msi handle both architectures, and I would agree that there are some questionable trade-offs involved in making one .ism handle it.
