I'm still new to the WiX world, this week I discovered the .msp extension used for updating.
I would like to know if I can identify a possible update through (fileexists)
Why that? So I wouldn't have to run the MSI on past machines, only to be able to run the MSP later.
Or if there is any way to start the .msp without having run the .msi before.
Thank you!
Patches don't work that way. To get what you want, use major upgrades -- they work for initial install and later updates. As I said at https://www.joyofsetup.com/2008/12/29/neither-more-nor-less/:
Major upgrades aren’t so limited: They can change anything in a product, but also support as few changes as a small update. So even if you’re changing only a few files, you can still use major upgrades. Think of major as an upper limit on the set of changes, not the lower limit on the type of upgrade you need.
Related
We have a unique requirement to create an msi using wix,the catch is that the msi must support multiple instance installation. User should be able to use the msi to install the product more than once on a particular system, so in order to achieve this we should disable repair mode and upgrades in msi, so literally each invocation of msi should be treated as fresh install.
Is the above requirement technically feasible with Wix? I am aware that having unique product code and package code for every invocation of msi will treat the installation as fresh install. Can this be achieved using a wrapper around the msi?
You could do this with a wrapper around the MSI. In general your wrapper program would start with the base MSI, alter the ProductCode and PackageCode using the Windows Installer APIs, copy this MSI to a location on the system then install it from there.
I say "copy and install" because it's futile trying to disable repair - it's too baked into the architecture of Windows Installer. If you have each separate MSI product cached somewhere then repair will work using that unique MSI, and it also means that you could modify as well. Repair is too unpredictable to completely prevent. Any shared files can trigger repair from other installed products that share them. What do clients do if they accidentally delete files or registry entries? And there's this about keeping the source MSI available, although the list of reasons doesn't come with a lot of explanation, Rule 31:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/windows_installer_team/2006/05/24/tao-of-the-windows-installer-part-3/
There are a lot of other issue that aren't mentioned, so it's not clear if you care about patches and maintenance in general, about multiple entries in Programs/Features (that you could suppress, but how do you uninstall?) and so on. It's also not clear that each of these separate installs don't conflict with each other in any way, such as common files/registry entries, service names, files being installed in the same location with the same name.
Before sending you to the MSI SDK I should add that I dislike this instance transform concept myself, and have not used it in practice. It might be that I have become a grumpy old man! :-).
MSINEWINSTANCE: Please investigate the MSINEWINSTANCE property and read up on the MSI SDK topic: "Installing Multiple Instances of Products and Patches". And here is perhaps a better example - more practically oriented.
Also some context on why I am not too keen on this feature. Carolyn Napier was on the original MSI team - this is straight from the horse's mouth as they say.
I know some people claim success with these instance transforms (Chris Painter might be able to illuminate my claims here), but I'd rather virtualize in scenarios such as these. Please see this age-old post from serverfault.com: I want to install an MSI twice (please skim all the other answers in that "thread" too).
APP-V: I have almost zero App-V experience, but my guess is that this is what you should try to convince your manager to spend some time on investigating. Maybe call in some favors and talk to guys who are operative in current deployment. They always have the current prevailing prejudice to report - with the tricks that make things work in the real world.
Great if you can let us know how you end up solving the problem.
Disable Repair & Modify: And for the record: disabling repair and modify (buttons only) can be done by setting the ARPNOMODIFY and ARPNOREPAIR properties. But this is not what you are looking for to allow multiple instance installations. MSI is not easily fooled and knows what you have installed and when - no reason to waste time testing these "options". All these two properties do is to hide or disable the modify and repair buttons - yields nothing you need apart from that.
I have a big program in WiX that uses a bunch of MSIs, C# custom action programs, UIs, bootstrapper, you name it, it's there.
I'm having this problem: when I run a major upgrade, the previous version isn't being erased. That is, if I upgrade from version 1.0.0.x to 1.1.0.x, Programs & Features shows that both versions are installed on the machine.
This is a common problem, with many solutions here on SO. None of them are working for me -- if there's a post of SO about this, I've tried it.
I've been told that there's a one-to-one relationship between components in a major upgrade. That is, for every component that is removed, another component has to be added. When it's NOT a one-to-one relationship is when the old version doesn't get removed -- because there are still old components hanging.
Is there a way to determine what components are hanging? Like, in the log files or something? If I could determine what MSI is having the problem I could be far more proactive in solving the issue.
EDIT:
Although I haven't solved the problem, thanks to Mr. Urman's suggestions I may be on the right track.
I created that registry key, but... it didn't seem to do anything. However, I did search my uninstall logs for the word "Disallow", and I found this phrase 9 times:
Disallowing uninstallation of component: {GUID-HERE} since another client exists.
Also, this phrase appears before each grouping of the "Disallow" phrase:
PROPERTY CHANGE: Adding INSTALLLEVEL property. It's value is '1'.
This gives me something to go on. However, I can't seem to find the GUIDs that are mentioned! They're not in my solution nor are they searchable in the registry. Besides searching the registry, is there a way (Windows 7 32 bit) to find out what component a specific GUID corresponds to?
I've been told that there's a one-to-one relationship between components in a major upgrade. That is, for every component that is removed, another component has to be added. When it's NOT a one-to-one relationship is when the old version doesn't get removed -- because there are still old components hanging.
This is not strictly true. It's quite true of minor upgrades, and in certain configurations (those involving a late RemoveExistingProducts) major upgrades are just as picky. But your typical major upgrade functions more like the user had chosen to uninstall the old version, then to install the new version. Start by verifying your assumptions: make sure you have a proper major upgrade (you changed your ProductVersion and Product Code, and have the right entries in your Upgrade table, right?). Then diagnose.
How best to identify what's going on? In my experience, log files are your best bet. Since the older version is being uninstalled indirectly, you cannot use command lines to log it. So instead set the Logging policy by creating or setting the following registry value. (Remove it later when you want to revert the setting.)
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Installer
Value (Reg_SZ): Logging
Data: voicewarmup
Then run your major upgrade, find the appropriate log file that was generated in %temp%. (Consider cleaning out %temp% ahead of time to make finding it easier. Or sort by date.) Look especially at the uninstallation (which you can identify by ProductVersion, or the presence of UPGRADINGPRODUCTCODE). I'd look especially for lines like Disallowing uninstallation of component ... that contain a component GUID.
Once you have that GUID, you have to figure out what component it is, and how it got into its current state. You can manually examine your built .msi files (with a tool like Orca) to find the component, but few tools will tell you all the clients. My employer's product comes with a helper tool called InstallShield Msi Sleuth that can list all the installed products referencing a component code, or you can build your own from MsiEnumProducts or Installer.ComponentClients. You cannot just search the registry directly, because Windows Installer stores GUIDs in a compressed or packed form.
Then identifying the "why" could be the hard part. Or it could be as simple as an incorrect Shared DLL reference count, especially if you've only encountered this on a test machine that has seen non-released versions of your product.
As a related alternative, but only relevant to a minor upgrade or small update, you could set the EnforceUpgradeComponentRules Policy. This helps reveal problems as you hit them, rather than allowing Windows Installer to do its best to continue anyway.
I have a product.msi having some custom action and it has been released.
patch.msp is a patch I made for product.msi.
when I remove this patch from Control panel => Add/Remove Program, custom action which in old package always run. that is not my expectation.
I don't want to run custom action when patch uninstall.
I also googled, but no good way fro released product, I can't change the wxs file to add condition for custom action.
Anyone can help me?
Most thanks your help!
A patch features patch-specific properties such as PATCH and MSIPATCHREMOVE. Use these conditions on custom actions to make them run or not run during a patch depending on what is necessary.
Be careful with the conditions on custom actions, they are complicated to get right. Here is a "MSI Conditions Cheat Sheet" to help you. I have not tested these conditions - testing is the only guarantee.
I am throwing in some further patching advice since this is difficult stuff to deal with. Please do read to save yourself trouble. Hate sending people down the wrong track with such a problematic technology:
If there are errors in a product's uninstall sequence your fix involves creating a very carefully designed minor upgrade that you can deliver as a patch. This is one of the best uses of a patch.
A minor upgrade does not uninstall the existing installation, but rater re-caches a new MSI file to use for maintenance and uninstall operations. Hence you can fix the uninstall before it is run.
Create a minor upgrade, test it fully as a regular upgrade install, and then package it as a patch. A patch is merely a distribution / delivery mechanism for an upgrade that works.
Don't waste time making a patch before the upgrade is verified. This is a common mistake that wastes a lot of time. In fact if the minor upgrade works, a patch may not be necessary at all. Just use the minor upgrade unless your MSI file is enormously big and you want to deliver a small "hotfix".
If you need to include files in your patch, I recommend enabling "include whole files". Otherwise bit-level patching is done, and this is unnecessary complexity (unless your binaries are enormous).
Include only what you need in a patch. Add no files or settings that are not required, and you can make a reliable patch. Avoid adding custom actions if at all possible.
Be aware that a patch uses the same InstallExecuteSequence as a regular install, but you can condition custom actions differently with patch-specific properties such as PATCH and MSIPATCHREMOVE. Use these conditions on custom actions to make them run or not run during a patch depending on what is necessary.
This "fix uninstall approach" is one of very few scenarios where I find MSI-patching can be successfully used. Otherwise patching is very complicated and error prone. It is also effective for small "hotfixes" to huge products - which obviously is what the whole technology is designed for.
Check Stefan Kruger's installsite.org for more upgrades and patching tips.
Check out this well known wix tutorial for upgrades and patches. And MSDN.
I'm using AjaxControlToolkit and they decided to change their version numbering scheme. The change is documented here : http://stephenwalther.com/archive/2013/01/24/new-january-2013-release-of-the-ajax-control-toolkit.aspx
Basicaly, the newer versions have a lower file version (4.1.7.123 is newer than 4.1.60501.0, but 7 is smaller than 60501.)
Obviously, this causes issues in my MSI as it is now seeing a component with an higher version number already on the machine and thus ouputs this:
MSI (s) (7C:10) [10:04:14:996]: Disallowing installation of component: {22C7D2FC-179E-515D-B650-CE20A7B3F9E0} since the same component with higher versioned keyfile exists
How would i go and force the installation of this newer but lower-version-number component ?
P.S. Personal rant: AjaxControlToolkit guys for justifying this number by saying "And yes, I realize that 7.0123 is less than 60,919, but we ran out of numbers.". 4.2.7.123 would have worked, guys. You ran out of 3rd numbers, fine, you need to increment the 2nd.
Easiest thing to do is to install to a new location. That will avoid the checks completely. A hacked thing to do is to fake the File.Version column in the MSI but that will only get you through this once, eventually you'll need to get to a new location to address the problem.
You could also set the REINSTALLMODE to include "a" but that will just create all sorts of grief for you lately, so I can't really recommend that as an option.
Note: The AjaxControlToolkit guys did give you a huge headache. If they renamed their .dll, that would be the most helpful. Seems like the least they could do since they just broke their world so badly.
I'm a bit light on detail but I think we have a problem.
Using the copy/paste method of boostrapping an installer project in wix, it appears we seem to have missed updating the UpgradeCode to ensure they are unique...
<Product Id="*" UpgradeCode="SOME-BAD-FOO">
So, it is my understanding that this is "not good" (r)(tm)
At the moment the users of the 2 installers with this issue are unlikely to have installed both, but they may in future.
Looking for ideas on how to fix this issue before it becomes an installed nightmare...
Maybe Windows cannot even install both at the same time?
Is there some way to perform an upgrade install/patch and change the UpgradeCode?
So, it is my understanding that this is "not good" (r)(tm)
That is really not good, you should be careful to not do that in the future as it can give you, and your users, a lot of headaches.
However, the solution is very simple. All you need to do is to change the upgrade code for one of the packages, and to add the current upgrade code in the Upgrade table for the new version, so it removes it, if it is found on the machine.
If you are sure the second version will be installed by all your users that have installed the first one, in the next release you should remove the upgrade code the from Upgrade table, to make sure you don't have any conflicts with the second package, i.e. the still using the first upgrade code.
One question I'd ask would be are you using Major or Minor Upgrades.
If Minor, I've never tried changing the UpgradeCode but not the ProductCode. I think it would be OK but I'm afraid to find out.
If Major Upgrades, do the products use different version number ranges? 1.0-1.9 , 2.0-2.9? If so, it would possible to change the UpgradeCode in both installers ( just leave the 'dirty' guid in your past ) and then use the old guid in your UpgradeTable with a version # as a the key to identifying the correct product codes.
If not, do you know every single ProductCode that was ever released to the wild for both products? A custom action could be used to query MSI for installed ProductCodes and then compare it to a list of known guids to decide whether it applies or not.
You'll have to leave the code in forever though. Old versions of software have a tendency to stick around forever.