| Groups | Blog | Home |
visual c libraries : vc80_crt deployment failure
Hi,
Has anyone encountered this problem with the new merge modules? We've encountered a difference in the RTM msm's from the Beta2 in that an extra custom action SxsInstallCA has appeared but is not in the binary table. This causes msi's built with the release vc80_crt to fail on the missing custom action on Windows 2000 installs. Did I miss something? Installing the Dot Net framework fixes it but this can't be a pre-requisite can it? Antony
I think MSI 3.1 is now required on the end user's machine - see some
comments here: http://blogs.msdn.com/martynl/archive/2005/10/13/480880.aspx Note this was never revealed as a requirement anywhere. Ted. [quoted text, click to view] "Antony" <Antony@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:6AF42260-43FA-4E76-A822-E4DDADEEAF34@microsoft.com... > Hi, > > Has anyone encountered this problem with the new merge modules? > > We've encountered a difference in the RTM msm's from the Beta2 in that an > extra custom action SxsInstallCA has appeared but is not in the binary > table. > This causes msi's built with the release vc80_crt to fail on the missing > custom action on Windows 2000 installs. > Did I miss something? Installing the Dot Net framework fixes it but this > can't be a pre-requisite can it? > > Antony >
Thanks Ted,
Indeed it is true the custom action in question is included in V3.1 of MSI. It would be helpful to know these things. That change must have been known well before RTM. Still, it works now and MSI3.1 is a 2.5Mb hit rather than the 23Mb of dotnetfx. Antony [quoted text, click to view] "Ted" wrote:
> I think MSI 3.1 is now required on the end user's machine - see some > comments here: > > http://blogs.msdn.com/martynl/archive/2005/10/13/480880.aspx > > Note this was never revealed as a requirement anywhere. > > Ted. > > "Antony" <Antony@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:6AF42260-43FA-4E76-A822-E4DDADEEAF34@microsoft.com... > > Hi, > > > > Has anyone encountered this problem with the new merge modules? > > > > We've encountered a difference in the RTM msm's from the Beta2 in that an > > extra custom action SxsInstallCA has appeared but is not in the binary > > table. > > This causes msi's built with the release vc80_crt to fail on the missing > > custom action on Windows 2000 installs. > > Did I miss something? Installing the Dot Net framework fixes it but this > > can't be a pre-requisite can it? > > > > Antony > > > >
Although, I'm not sure why that is the case, because if I look at the MSM in
Orca it shows the following: under CustomAction: Action Source Target SxsInstallCA SxsUninstallCA CustomAction_SxsMsmInstall SxsUninstallCA SxsUninstallCA CustomAction_SxsMsmCleanup and under Binary: SxsUninstallCA Notice how the source of the SxsInstallCA action is actually SxsUninstallCA, which is located in the Binary table. So I'm not sure what you mean by the SxsInstallCA being included in 3.1. 3.1 seems to be required, but the custom action itself is included in the MSM (embedded in the SxsUninstallCA binary) . However, I'm not sure why this custom action (or some other part of the MSM file) actually requires 3.1. If you find out what functionality of 3.1 is actually required, please let me know, as I'm not too experienced with MSI. I used to be non-MSI junkie of InstallShield (at InstallShield community forums I used to post as tw0001), but gave up on installs a few years ago. Thanks Ted. [quoted text, click to view] "Antony" <Antony@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:6A239D11-425F-4C6A-B68B-78E2437684C7@microsoft.com... > Thanks Ted, > > Indeed it is true the custom action in question is included in V3.1 of > MSI. > > It would be helpful to know these things. That change must have been known > well before RTM. Still, it works now and MSI3.1 is a 2.5Mb hit rather than > the 23Mb of dotnetfx. > > Antony > > "Ted" wrote: > >> I think MSI 3.1 is now required on the end user's machine - see some >> comments here: >> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/martynl/archive/2005/10/13/480880.aspx >> >> Note this was never revealed as a requirement anywhere. >> >> Ted. >> >> "Antony" <Antony@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:6AF42260-43FA-4E76-A822-E4DDADEEAF34@microsoft.com... >> > Hi, >> > >> > Has anyone encountered this problem with the new merge modules? >> > >> > We've encountered a difference in the RTM msm's from the Beta2 in that >> > an >> > extra custom action SxsInstallCA has appeared but is not in the binary >> > table. >> > This causes msi's built with the release vc80_crt to fail on the >> > missing >> > custom action on Windows 2000 installs. >> > Did I miss something? Installing the Dot Net framework fixes it but >> > this >> > can't be a pre-requisite can it? >> > >> > Antony >> > >> >> >>
This is correct - VS2005 MSMs depend on MSI 3.1. If this is a problem, for example, your product has to have no reboot install on WinXP pre-SP2, you can request a QFE by contacting developer support team on support.microsoft.com.
Thanks, Nikola VC++ -----Original Message----- From: Antony Posted At: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:12 AM Posted To: microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc.libraries Conversation: vc80_crt deployment failure Subject: Re: vc80_crt deployment failure Thanks Ted, Indeed it is true the custom action in question is included in V3.1 of MSI. It would be helpful to know these things. That change must have been known well before RTM. Still, it works now and MSI3.1 is a 2.5Mb hit rather than the 23Mb of dotnetfx. Antony [quoted text, click to view] "Ted" wrote:
> I think MSI 3.1 is now required on the end user's machine - see some > comments here: > > http://blogs.msdn.com/martynl/archive/2005/10/13/480880.aspx > > Note this was never revealed as a requirement anywhere. > > Ted. > > "Antony" <Antony@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:6AF42260-43FA-4E76-A822-E4DDADEEAF34@microsoft.com... > > Hi, > > > > Has anyone encountered this problem with the new merge modules? > > > > We've encountered a difference in the RTM msm's from the Beta2 in that an > > extra custom action SxsInstallCA has appeared but is not in the binary > > table. > > This causes msi's built with the release vc80_crt to fail on the missing > > custom action on Windows 2000 installs. > > Did I miss something? Installing the Dot Net framework fixes it but this > > can't be a pre-requisite can it? > > > > Antony > > > >
It is by design decision. Sorry if I confused you with earlier reply. I just mentioned QFEs because if your company may has proper agreement, then it can request similar changes. If support team contacts us with a request for a change, then we will investigate impact of the change, is it breaking or not, etc and so on. However, you have to bring up this issue with developer support first, then they let us know what should be changed. Another way is to file a report on http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/, but reports here are triaged as product bugs and may be fixed only in the next product release if fixed.
Nikola VC++ -----Original Message----- From: Ted Posted At: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 4:18 PM Posted To: microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc.libraries Conversation: vc80_crt deployment failure Subject: Re: vc80_crt deployment failure So do you mean that it's a bug that they happen to be dependent on MSI 3.1? Or was it designed that way from the start. If it's a bug, will this QFE be rolled into any upcoming service pack? If using the QFE, will there be any loss of functionality by using MSI 2.0 on Windows 2000/XP/2003? Is this QFE already built and ready to send to people or does someone still have to construct it. If so when will be ready? Thanks Ted. [quoted text, click to view] <nikolad@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23S8kaXh6FHA.252@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > This is correct - VS2005 MSMs depend on MSI 3.1. If this is a problem, for > example, your product has to have no reboot install on WinXP pre-SP2, you > can request a QFE by contacting developer support team on > support.microsoft.com. > > > Thanks, > Nikola > VC++ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Antony > Posted At: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:12 AM > Posted To: microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc.libraries > Conversation: vc80_crt deployment failure > Subject: Re: vc80_crt deployment failure > > > Thanks Ted, > > Indeed it is true the custom action in question is included in V3.1 of > MSI. > > It would be helpful to know these things. That change must have been known > well before RTM. Still, it works now and MSI3.1 is a 2.5Mb hit rather than > the 23Mb of dotnetfx. > > Antony > > "Ted" wrote: > >> I think MSI 3.1 is now required on the end user's machine - see some >> comments here: >> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/martynl/archive/2005/10/13/480880.aspx >> >> Note this was never revealed as a requirement anywhere. >> >> Ted. >> >> "Antony" <Antony@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:6AF42260-43FA-4E76-A822-E4DDADEEAF34@microsoft.com... >> > Hi, >> > >> > Has anyone encountered this problem with the new merge modules? >> > >> > We've encountered a difference in the RTM msm's from the Beta2 in that >> > an >> > extra custom action SxsInstallCA has appeared but is not in the binary >> > table. >> > This causes msi's built with the release vc80_crt to fail on the >> > missing >> > custom action on Windows 2000 installs. >> > Did I miss something? Installing the Dot Net framework fixes it but >> > this >> > can't be a pre-requisite can it? >> > >> > Antony >> > >> >>
So do you mean that it's a bug that they happen to be dependent on MSI 3.1?
Or was it designed that way from the start. If it's a bug, will this QFE be rolled into any upcoming service pack? If using the QFE, will there be any loss of functionality by using MSI 2.0 on Windows 2000/XP/2003? Is this QFE already built and ready to send to people or does someone still have to construct it. If so when will be ready? Thanks Ted. [quoted text, click to view] <nikolad@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:%23S8kaXh6FHA.252@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > This is correct - VS2005 MSMs depend on MSI 3.1. If this is a problem, for > example, your product has to have no reboot install on WinXP pre-SP2, you > can request a QFE by contacting developer support team on > support.microsoft.com. > > > Thanks, > Nikola > VC++ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Antony > Posted At: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:12 AM > Posted To: microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc.libraries > Conversation: vc80_crt deployment failure > Subject: Re: vc80_crt deployment failure > > > Thanks Ted, > > Indeed it is true the custom action in question is included in V3.1 of > MSI. > > It would be helpful to know these things. That change must have been known > well before RTM. Still, it works now and MSI3.1 is a 2.5Mb hit rather than > the 23Mb of dotnetfx. > > Antony > > "Ted" wrote: > >> I think MSI 3.1 is now required on the end user's machine - see some >> comments here: >> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/martynl/archive/2005/10/13/480880.aspx >> >> Note this was never revealed as a requirement anywhere. >> >> Ted. >> >> "Antony" <Antony@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:6AF42260-43FA-4E76-A822-E4DDADEEAF34@microsoft.com... >> > Hi, >> > >> > Has anyone encountered this problem with the new merge modules? >> > >> > We've encountered a difference in the RTM msm's from the Beta2 in that >> > an >> > extra custom action SxsInstallCA has appeared but is not in the binary >> > table. >> > This causes msi's built with the release vc80_crt to fail on the >> > missing >> > custom action on Windows 2000 installs. >> > Did I miss something? Installing the Dot Net framework fixes it but >> > this >> > can't be a pre-requisite can it? >> > >> > Antony >> > >> >> >>
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
December 2006
January 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
September 2007
October 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |