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.
Telemak
Level 3
- Revenera Community
- :
- About Telemak
Nov 13, 2023
10:34 AM
1 Kudo
Hey @tdhintz and @Stefan1234 , I already noticed the wrong conditions used by the default InstallShield prerequisites for .Net Core 2.1 when I was looking for the .Net Core 3.1 ones on its release. Since then I always create them myself. As you have noticed, in the case of the Hosting Bundle, the Registry cannot be used to check for the same or later versions install state. I am using a long list of 20 "A File Exists" conditions, starting with the version number of the included runtime in the prerequisite. So in the case of my ".NET Windows Hosting Bundle 6.0.24.prq": "A File Exists", "[ProgramFilesFolder]\dotnet\shared\Microsoft.AspNetCore.App\6.0.24\.version" "A File Exists", "[ProgramFilesFolder]\dotnet\shared\Microsoft.AspNetCore.App\6.0.25\.version" "A File Exists", "[ProgramFilesFolder]\dotnet\shared\Microsoft.AspNetCore.App\6.0.26\.version" and so on (I do 20 times) In the "Prerequisite Condition" select "Run this prerequisite" "If the specified file IS NOT FOUND in the location specified". So this condition will return TRUE if not found and therefore the prq will be only run if ALL the "A File Exists" conditions will return TRUE (not found). If any of them returns FALSE (version found), the prq will not run. Edit: In the case of the .NET Desktop Runtime the ".version" file does not exist anymore since .NET 6, so I'll use the same registry approach that was attached to this topic by ayung_2831, but I configured to check an other registry key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\WOW6432Node\dotnet\Setup\InstalledVersions\x64\sharedfx\Microsoft.WindowsDesktop.App (or x86, depending on the runtime to be installed) instead of "...\sharedfx\Microsoft.NETCore.App"
... View more
Sep 15, 2011
12:40 PM
Hello, I do not know if this is exactly the same issue as us, but we are running into a failure during a Major Upgrade of a Chain as well. We have 5 main apps in our chain. 2 of these app installers (.msi) have removal conditions on them that will not allow them to uninstall if any dependency apps still exist on the system. So our original chain will install and uninstall these apps in the correct order. This works fine, but now we created a major upgrade that has the main chain as well as all chained .msi projects major upgrades. So we are appling this major upgrade install over the original version and it fails because it tries running the first chained install in major upgrade mode and it will fail because of the uninstall condition if anything still exists. I know this was not that great to add to the installer, but we were not thinking correctly..... Anyways we thought that the Major Upgrade of the main Chain would actually uninstall all products it installed first before installing all chained products that are built in to it. Is this what it is suppose to do??? In the log it shows the following command line: MSI (s) (B0!68) [10:01:19:387]: PROPERTY CHANGE: Adding IS_CHAINER_POST_COMMANDLINE property. Its value is '/qb /x{9D81615E-B150-488B-90CA-1159E2113BE3} /qb /x{3ABF6865-E84E-4DAB-B730-0EB9E8F37EB1} /qb /x{ED0FF410-41B9-441F-B457-4AC81782E8BF} /qb /x{67E6410C-1E97-4D03-BEC2-8E83323A6BBD} /qb /x{0E5DD7A3-BE29-430C-970B-C553F4A58C39}'. These are the correct product codes for the products installed and in the correct uninstall order, but this does not seem to get triggered. So Again is a major upgrade of a chain suppose to uninstall everything it installed first before installing the chained products or is it suppose to simply uninstall it self, then reinstall it self and trigger the installs of the chained installer. At this point if they are major upgrades then they simply handle themselves??? If this is the case then I have to figure out how to get those 2 main products that do not uninstall to be uninstalled.... Thanks for any insight into Chained Major Upgrades...
... View more
Latest posts by Telemak
Subject | Views | Posted |
---|---|---|
10203 | Aug 31, 2022 06:40 AM | |
1772 | Nov 04, 2009 11:23 AM | |
4610 | Oct 31, 2009 09:31 AM |
Activity Feed
- Posted Re: .NET 6 prerequisites on InstallShield Forum. Aug 31, 2022 06:40 AM
- Posted Re: Question About Upgrading Chained Installers on InstallShield Forum. Nov 04, 2009 11:23 AM
- Posted Question About Upgrading Chained Installers on InstallShield Forum. Oct 31, 2009 09:31 AM
Contact Me
Online Status |
Offline
|
Date Last Visited |
Feb 02, 2023
05:53 AM
|