Aug 05, 2013
08:25 AM
Ah..now that is excellent information I never considered. Thank you, I'll have to reconsider.
... View more
Aug 02, 2013
04:57 PM
For anyone stumbling here in the future, what I did was use the -z flag of the command-line builder to set a custom MSI property. Each of my builds is controlled by a line in a batch file, and each line now has a new -z "RELEASETYPE=FREEWARE" (or "TRIAL" etc.), e.g. "C:\Program Files (x86)\InstallShield\2013\System\IsCmdBld.exe" -c COMP -p "C:\work\...MyProject.ism" -r ReleaseName -y 1.0.0.1 -z "RELEASETYPE=READONLY" My Component Condition then checks that custom property to know if it should be excluded by a specific build, e.g. RELEASETYPE<>"READONLY" This allows me to keep my current Function structure and not get excessive with duplicating Components across Features, whose size is not insignificant. Works like a charm. Mark
... View more
Aug 02, 2013
02:11 PM
> Since you can specify more than one release flag in any specific build, combined with the conditional and platform testing at the component level, there are a lot of ways to approach these issues. Right. I'm already doing it Feature based (same as you), it would be a lot more efficient if I could employ use of the Condition property at the Component level, which is specifically what I'm trying to find out how to do.
... View more
Aug 02, 2013
11:57 AM
Under Help for Configuring Component Conditions it states: > Conditional installation of your components can be useful if you are creating different versions of the same product—for example, a trial version and a full version. You might not want to provide full functionality in the trial version, therefore you would not install all of the components. That's exactly what I need to do. I build a Full product msi and a Trial msi. I currently use two different project files. They each contain 3 features: "Common," "32 bit Files" and "64 bit Files." Some of the Components under "32 bit Files" and "64 bit Files" should not be installed for the Trial version. How exactly can I accomplish that? Currently, the "32 bit Files" Feature has a Release Flags of "x86" and the "64 bit Files" Feature has a Release Flags of "x64." Those Release Flags are referenced in the Project Configuration Flags of my Release Configurations, which match my 32bit builds and my 64bit builds. Rather than adding new Features which are essentially "Exclusion" Features which I would exclude for the Trial release, I'd like to simply mark some of the Components under my current "32 bit Files" and "64 bit Files" as "NOT Trial" and add "Trial" as a Release Flag in my Trial Release Configuration. Can this be accomplished? According to the documentation sentences as mentioned above, that's precisely how the Condition property at the Component level can be used. I'm just not sure of the syntax. Thanks!
... View more
Labels
- Labels:
-
InstallShield 2013
Oct 28, 2009
03:47 PM
bryanwolf wrote: Changing the 4th field of a file should result in the file being upgraded. While MSI doesn't recognize the 4th field of a Product Version, the File Version is compared using a separate set of rules described here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa368599(VS.85).aspx Thank you Bryan, your post came in right after I posted mine. I wish I had known this earlier, I was under the assumption it was requiring the fourth element, due to the warning appearing in IS. I did seem to have an error in how I was designing my patch. Good stuff - thanks everyone. Mark
... View more
Oct 28, 2009
03:37 PM
Well, despite the warning, it is now replacing the file correctly. I don't know why. I do have a minor upgrade item in place, and changed the ProductCode from the original. Perhaps it is going only on the file timestamp. I'd like to understand why but it's more important that it works. This stuff is confusing when you only do it two weeks out of the year. thanks, Mark
... View more
Oct 28, 2009
08:36 AM
I have been using a minor upgrade, it doesn't work with that. I guess I need to either change the version schema for just our beta or go with a major upgrade, if that will even work.
... View more
Oct 27, 2009
05:15 PM
Hi Cary, I am targeting only the base release. I turned on the "Minor Update to RTM Version" setting in the Patch configuration. However I still see the message, and the file is still not getting updated. It gets updated if I change any but the fourth element of the executable version. Hopefully this is not an msi limitation thanks, Mark
... View more
Oct 27, 2009
03:54 PM
We use them as Major.Minor.Patch.Build, e.g. 9.0.0.138 - major commercial release of 9.0 9.1.0.54 - minor commercial release, 9.1 9.1.1.3 - patch 1 of 9.1 9.1.2.7 - patch 2 of 9.1 now I'm preparing our beta program, and our betas differ only on the fourth number - the build number in our case, and I'm getting complaints about msi not handling file version numbers out to the fourth element. and it's also not working; the file is not getting updated. yet. 🙂
... View more
Oct 27, 2009
03:17 PM
I'm trying to provide customers continual updates on a product executable which will differ on what we use as the build number - the fourth number, for instance: 10.2.0.1 10.2.0.2 10.2.0.3 When building my patch I get this: The product version '10.2.0.2' differs from the product version '10.2.0.1' but only past the third element. The Windows Installer does not detect version differences past the third version element. Is this possible?
... View more
Labels
- Labels:
-
InstallShield 2010
Oct 22, 2009
10:58 AM
This was it! When I would change ProductName, it created the msi filename based on that, and threw the error. To fix it, I changed ProductName to what it should have been, matching the previous msi ProductName. I then went into the Releases View > Product Configuration properties and set the "MSI Package File Name" to match the msi filename of what I was upgrading. This created proper release msi's with the right filename, but with the 'friendly' ProductName of the previous release, thus showing it properly in Add/Remove Programs. Yes! My one remaining bug now fixed. Beers all around. 🙂 Lurean wrote: On the releases view under the configuration settings you can set the product name, but further down the list you can specify the MSI Package File name, this is the name you need to make sure matches the old MSI filename.
... View more
Oct 22, 2009
08:14 AM
That's very helpful, and makes perfect sense. Thanks much. Mark
... View more
Oct 21, 2009
06:55 PM
Thanks. Yeah, at first I assumed I wouldn't have had to do anything, that it would simply use the previous value. Only when I noticed it as wrong in ARP did I set about trying to fix it and - no dice. I do have paid support. Unfortunately for me it has been abysmal. I emailed them last Friday, they got back to me today - 6 days later - with a "send us a screenshot of the ARP window." Um? This was after I went into great detail talking about the contents of my tables, etc. So I tried to bite my tongue and reply as politely as possible. Haven't heard back yet, but these forums are far better. We turn out product twice a week, I need support in a day, not once a week. Mark
... View more
Oct 21, 2009
06:00 PM
Why is the default value of REINSTALLMODE "omus" when you create a new Patch Configuration, but the recommended value when executing msiexec on the command line "vomus?"
... View more
Labels
- Labels:
-
InstallShield 2010
Oct 21, 2009
01:04 PM
The new msi filename does match the old msi filename. That isn't the problem. The problem is with the Product Name as it is appearing in Add/Remove Programs. What shows up there when I run the Upgrade is the msi filename. If I try to change anything in the Upgrade project file (which is Basic MSI) to correct it, it is then that I get the error about the product name not matching the previous installation. When I open the msi file used in the previous installation, the Product Name is as it should be. When I open the upgrade msi and view the Property table, the "ProductName" field contains the msi filename, not the product name as it does in the prior msi. If I try to correct it, I get the error about Product Name mismatch.
... View more
Latest posts by mlerch
Subject | Views | Posted |
---|---|---|
1989 | Aug 05, 2013 08:25 AM | |
1989 | Aug 02, 2013 04:57 PM | |
1989 | Aug 02, 2013 02:11 PM | |
6159 | Aug 02, 2013 11:57 AM | |
1209 | Oct 28, 2009 03:47 PM | |
1209 | Oct 28, 2009 03:37 PM | |
1209 | Oct 28, 2009 08:36 AM | |
1209 | Oct 27, 2009 05:15 PM | |
630 | Oct 27, 2009 03:54 PM | |
3197 | Oct 27, 2009 03:17 PM |
Activity Feed
- Posted Re: Conditionally installing Components based on Release Flags on InstallShield Forum. Aug 05, 2013 08:25 AM
- Posted Re: Conditionally installing Components based on Release Flags on InstallShield Forum. Aug 02, 2013 04:57 PM
- Posted Re: Conditionally installing Components based on Release Flags on InstallShield Forum. Aug 02, 2013 02:11 PM
- Posted Conditionally installing Components based on Release Flags on InstallShield Forum. Aug 02, 2013 11:57 AM
- Tagged Conditionally installing Components based on Release Flags on InstallShield Forum. Aug 02, 2013 11:57 AM
- Tagged Conditionally installing Components based on Release Flags on InstallShield Forum. Aug 02, 2013 11:57 AM
- Posted Re: Using the fourth version element on patches on InstallShield Forum. Oct 28, 2009 03:47 PM
- Posted Re: Using the fourth version element on patches on InstallShield Forum. Oct 28, 2009 03:37 PM
- Posted Re: Using the fourth version element on patches on InstallShield Forum. Oct 28, 2009 08:36 AM
- Posted Re: Using the fourth version element on patches on InstallShield Forum. Oct 27, 2009 05:15 PM
- Posted Re: Beta versioning best practice? on InstallShield Forum. Oct 27, 2009 03:54 PM
- Posted Using the fourth version element on patches on InstallShield Forum. Oct 27, 2009 03:17 PM
- Posted Re: Product Name on Upgrades for ARP on InstallShield Forum. Oct 22, 2009 10:58 AM
- Posted Re: REINSTALLMODE "v" not used in IDE? on InstallShield Forum. Oct 22, 2009 08:14 AM
- Posted Re: Product Name on Upgrades for ARP on InstallShield Forum. Oct 21, 2009 06:55 PM
- Posted REINSTALLMODE "v" not used in IDE? on InstallShield Forum. Oct 21, 2009 06:00 PM
- Posted Re: Product Name on Upgrades for ARP on InstallShield Forum. Oct 21, 2009 01:04 PM
- Posted Re: Product Name on Upgrades for ARP on InstallShield Forum. Oct 21, 2009 08:51 AM
- Posted Product Name on Upgrades for ARP on InstallShield Forum. Oct 20, 2009 02:28 PM
- Posted Re: Referencing installed Features on Upgrades on InstallShield Forum. Oct 20, 2009 12:38 PM