I've been trying to set up a WiX component such that the user can specify that the installer should not upgrade that component on a MajorUpgrade. I had the following code, but this means that if the condition is met then the new version is not installed, but the old version is also removed.
<Component Id="ExampleComponent" GUID="{GUID here}">
<Condition>NOT(KEEPOLDFILE="TRUE")</Condition>
<File Id="ExampleFile" Name="File.txt" KeyPath="yes" Source="File.txt"/>
</Component>
Ideally, if the user specifies "KEEPOLDFILE=TRUE", then the existing version of "File.txt" should be kept. I've looked into using the Permanent attribute, but this doesn't look relevant.
Is this possible to achieve without using CustomActions?
A bit more background information would be useful, however:
If your major upgrade is sequenced early (e.g. afterInstallInitialize) the upgrade is an uninstall followed by a fresh install, so saving the file is a tricky proposition because you'd save it, then do the new install, then restore it.
If the upgrade is late, then file overwrite rules apply during the upgrade, therefore it won't be replaced anyway. You'd need to do something such as make the creation and modify timestamps identical so that Windows will overwrite it with the new one. The solution in this case would be to run a custom action conditioned on "keep old file", so you'd do the reverse of this:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/astebner/2013/05/23/updating-the-last-modified-time-to-prevent-windows-installer-from-updating-an-unversioned-file/
And it's also not clear if that file is ALWAYS updated, so if in fact it has not been updated then why bother to ask the client whether to keep it?
It might be simpler to ignore the Windows Installer behavior by setting its component id to null, as documented here:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa368007(v=vs.85).aspx
Then you can do what you want with the file. If you've already installed it with a component guid it's too late for this solution.
There are better solutions that require the app to get involved where you install a template version of this file. The app makes a copy of it that it always uses. At upgrade time that template file is always replaced, and when the app first runs after the upgrade it asks whether to use the new file (so it copies and overwrites the one it was using) or continue to use the existing file. In my opinion delegating these issues to the install is not often an optimal solution.
Setting attributes like Permanent is typically not a good idea because they are not project attributes you can turn on and off on a whim - they apply to that component id on the system, and permanent means permanent.
I tried to make this a comment, it became to long. I prefer option 4 that Phil describes. Data files should not be meddled with by the setup, but managed by your application exe (if there is one) during its launch sequence. I don't know about others, but I feel like a broken record repeating this advice, but hear us out...
There is a description of a way to manage your data file's overwriting or preservation here. Essentially you update your exe to be "aware" of how your data file should be managed - if it should be preserved or overwritten, and you can change this behavior per version of your application exe if you like. The linked thread describes registry keys, but the concept can be used for files as well.
So essentially:
Template: Install your file per-machine as a read-only template
Launch Sequence: Copy it in place with application.exe launch sequence magic
Complex File Revision: Update the logic for file overwrite or preservation for every release as you see fit along the lines as the linked thread proposes
Your setup will "never know" about your data file, only the template file. It will leave your data file alone in all cases. Only the template file it will deal with.
Liberating your data files from the setup has many advantages:
Setup.exe bugs: No unintended accidental file overwrites or file reset problems from problematic major upgrade etc... this is a very common problem with MSI.
Setup bugs are hard to reproduce and debug since the conditions found on the target systems can generally not be replicated and debugging involves a lot of unusual technical complexity.
This is not great - it is messy - but here is a list of common MSI problems: How do I avoid common design flaws in my WiX / MSI deployment solution? - "a best effort in the interest of helping sort of thing". Let's be honest, it is a mess, but maybe it is helpful.
Application.exe Bugs: Keep in mind that you can make new bugs in your application.exe file, so you can still see errors - obviously. Bad ones too - if you are not careful - but you can easily implement a backup feature as well - one that always runs in a predictable context.
You avoid the complicated sequencing, conditioning and impersonation concerns that make custom actions and modern setups so complicated to do right and make reliable.
Following from that and other, technical and practical reasons: it is much easier to debug problems in the application launch sequence than bugs in your setup.
You can easily set up test conditions and test them interactively. In other words you can re-create problem conditions easily and test them in seconds. It could take you hours to do so with a setup.
Error messages can be interactive and meaningful and be shown to the user.
QA people are more familiar with testing application functionality than setup functionality.
And I repeat it: you are always in the same impersonation context (user context) and you have no installation sequence to worry about.
Related
Background : Customers have been copying a set of binaries and putting it on a specific location for them to run NinjaTrader Indicators. For Eg: lets assume The customer "A" has used First.dll, second.dll and Customer "B" has used First.dll and Third.dll (they did not use any installers, but just copied from a server location)
Current Requirement: I have to create a WIX installer with all possible updated DLLs with a caveat that it should install only those updated dll whose previous version customer has already on his machine. So if the new WIX installer has First_1000.dll, Second_1000.dll, Third_1000.dll and Fourth_1000.dll, then it should behave on Customer "A" and "B" as follows:
Customer "A": Uses this installer, his machine should have only First_1000.dll and Second_1000.dll and not others.
Customer "B": Uses this installer, his machine should have only First_1000.dll and Third_1000.dll and not others.
What I have Tried: Using the directorySearch and FileSearch, but I am not able to conditionally install, either it installs all or installs none. Other issue with this is it wont remove the previous version of the binary.
What I need: How to call a CustomAction method and use the return result to make decision to install or not, with this I can remove the previous version of the file as well.
Overall advice: don't approach deployment as a development task first and foremost. Get your files and settings deployed, and do any advanced configuration on application launch.
Do not implement any custom logic if all you need is a file copy and some registry keys - and certainly don't do it all in one custom action using WiX / MSI as a "shell" or "container" only.
There are many tools that can help you deploy your software: How to create windows installer (also lists legacy tools that are not MSI tools).
At one point I wrote this step-by-step answer for a WiX installer.
If you ask me for the easiest way to achieve what you want, then I would install all files via a single MSI and use the application itself to adjust any access to advanced features (if applicable) via the license code (if any). This minimizes your deployment complexity, and puts advanced features in a familiar context: application debugging in user context (most likely).
This avoids a world of pain of custom setup logic - which is very heavily overcomplicated by sequencing, impersonation and conditioningconcerns, not to mention runtime dependencies and other challenges. Collectively this causes the overall problem that setup logic is very hard to debug - due to the collective impact of all these aspects of complexity.
The general approach that should work is to:
Group the components (that contain one file each) into Features that when installed will do the right thing for each customer.
Use Feature conditions based on the results of the file searches and the property values set from the searches.
This example in the WiX docs, Conditional Installation seems to do almost exactly what you're looking for.
In the longer term you should build a setup that doesn't require this type of search behavior. You don't say why the file names change, but I'll guess that you are using the different names as a kind of version control. Installs, patches, service packs, upgrades and so on all replace files based on their binary versions. In a well-designed application and install, the binary versions of the existing files might all be 1.0. If the new files are all versioned 1.1 then all the old files will be replaced. If one was version 1.0 (and therefore unchanged) it would not be replaced. The file names would not change. Version control is the basis for updates, so I recommend moving in that direction.
I believe Patch works by creating a transform by comparing the existing MSI (1st one) and the new one (2nd MSI). I have a customer requirement (don't ask me why) not to create the 2nd MSI and still have another option to create a patch. Is this possible? If so, can you please provide the details? If not, can you please provide links / proofs substantiating this?
Since all files are just a collection of bytes, it's hard to prove the impossibility. However the only Microsoft-documented way to create a patch (.msp file) involves invoking patchwiz.dll (perhaps through msimsp.exe) to process the differences between two or more installation databases (.msi files). Creating a Patch Package describes this process in more detail.
If you got past this, skipping msimsp.exe/patchwiz.dll and thus avoiding creating the upgraded .msi file here, you would still have to create the transforms that go in the transform substorage. The only documented way to generate a transform (.mst file) still requires two installation databases, so you'd need your second .msi file for this step.
If you figure out how to generate .mst files without a pair of .msi files, then in theory it may also be possible to package it all up into a .msp file. I have yet to see enough documentation on how to do this, however.
(Pointers to that documentation would be gratefully accepted, whether as comments, edits, or alternate answers.)
I'm currently building a product distributed through MSI Windows Installer. That product is being integrated by our customers using different forms such us inside their own MSI, using bootstrapper/chainner like WiX Burn or authoring tools like InstallShield.
Having this scenario in mind, I always wanted to know what are the limitations and/or benefits to use Merge Modules (MSM) instead of keeping an MSI, and also what are the nowadays recommended approach about choosing one against the other.
On paper merge modules are fine, but in the real world I find them clunky to update and hence error prone since they may be merged into many setups before being discovered to be defective. As a result I do not recommend merge modules at all. I prefer a single MSI that can be run as a batch process via a bootstrapper or batch file and that can also be updated easily. This avoids all kinds of problems that are not generally intuitive.
I want to add that merge modules work well for truly shared files installed in locations in the file system that are meant for shared files and that change infrequently. These are generally OS-runtimes. These merge modules are generally heavily tested and work ok. However, often I see people use merge modules for files that end up changing frequently and that they then end up installing in different locations in different flavors in an ad-hoc fashion. This kind of use is a total mess and a hugely wasted effort.
Having said all that - I have indeed used merge modules successfully when I have needed advanced release management with repetitive, non-changing inclusion of a set of files via a merge module into several setups. Even then I ran into a version issue after a while with a couple of files needing update, and subsequent, minor errors with the wrong merge module being used when I left the project to someone else. I also experienced having to rebuild all setups due to a minor merge module bug fix. All setups then had to go through QA again. Very frustrating with such tight coupling.
If your requirements are simple and you are not taking on a huge multi-product release project sharing a bunch of files, use MSI instead of MSM. Easier to comprehend, generally less work to deal with, more atomic updates and less risk of introducing the same error in many setups due to merge module update or design problems.
There's nothing that wrong with merge modules. Their primary use (which hasn't been mentioned) is sharing. If you want the same set of shared files in multiple MSI files, they need the same set of component guids to preserve the sharing rules. Or if you are giving files to clients for them to use (like Microsoft) in their MSI builds then give them merge modules. That's one of the reasons MS and other vendors redistribute merge modules so that everyone can build their MSIs and install them on the same system without file sharing disasters. I've also seen merge modules used as a common UI for MSI files. But mainly they are essential to make sure that shared files are used correctly. I'll tell you from experience that the disaster resulting from incorrect use of shared files is much worse that any perceived difficulty with using merge modules. Note also that they are universal and can be included in all tools that build MSI files.
I've never found merge modules difficult to patch, version, or fix. Major upgrades aren't a problem. The only potential issue I've seen is with build processes that rebuild all the binaries in a merge module during creation of a patch (.msp) build. If only one binary needs a fix but you compile them all, their versions and internals may change enough so that the patch process (the delta between two MSI files and their content) will tell you that they need to be included in the patch because they've changed, but this issue can be avoided if it is in fact an issue.
Short version: How can I make sure that my component GUIDs remain stable using Paraffin on a build server?
I am currently working on a project that should be deployed via WiX. As this is a web project, it contains many files (still in early stage and already almost 200 files). Also, during development, files are constantly added and deleted, so maintaining the WiX component lists manually is simply not an option.
Since I read a lot about component rules and that people breaking them go to hell, I decided to go with Paraffin as a harvester. This tool is capable of updating an existing component list, thus not re-creating new GUIDs for existing components.
However, when a new component is created, the tool assigns a new GUID. Even if the component files are identical, then initial GUIDs will be different on different machines or even only at different times.
So, obviously, I need a central authority for fixing the initial GUIDs. My idea was to commit empty component lists, which are then filled by the build server calling Paraffin on build. So when I only distribute the MSIs created by the build server, I can be sure that component rules are being followed.
However, the problem with this approach is, that I have no means of tracking my GUIDs, should the build server crash or empty its local repository. I was thinking about having the build server commit the generated component list to my repository, but that doesn't seem like a clean idea.
Another solution I thought of was having all developers build (and thus call Paraffin) before commiting. Thus, each developer would create the initial GUIDs for their newly added files and commit them to the component list.
The obvious problem with this approach: People (e.g. developer A) will forget to build before they commit. So in these cases the build server will create the initial GUIDs for the new files, but those will also only be stored locally. A few commits later, developer B will come along and build the solution, creating a new GUID for the files created by developer A. He will then commit the component list containing this GUID and the build server will check it out. Now the build server has obtained a GUID (created by developer A) for a package, for which it had previously used a different (self-created) GUID, even though the files didn't change in the meantime.
So, how can I make sure, that my GUIDs remain stable between builds without relying on developers to build their solution before they commit? The approaches outlined above both seem unsatisfying to me, but are all I can think of right now.
As far as I am concerned component rules only really come into play when you have multiple installers that share components with the same guids (which should then be exactly the same resource(s)) or you are using a wixlib or a merge module which is then included as part of different installers.
From what you have said above, to me it doesn't sound like you will so, there is no harm in having different component guids for each build. It will just mean that when you upgrade the website, files that have not changed will be removed and re-installed under a different component guid. IMHO that doesn't really matter as long as the installer correctly installs all files that are required for the site to function and doesn't remove components from other products.
If you use the MajorUpgrade element, the old product will be completely removed before the new one is installed so any component guid's that are shared between the two versions will be removed and then re-installed anyway.
I always just leave my guid elements as Guid='*' that way I know that the there will never^ be any guid clashes in any of my components across my multiple products.
^ I know this is not theoretically true but in this use case it is.
Not entirely true. Changing your component GUIDs from build to build is fine if and only if you schedule RemoveExistingProducts early so that the files are off the system before you reinstall the new GUIDs. This approach works well for smallish installers with not so many files, but as your installer grows you will feel the pinch of having twice as much IO to do, as you remove and then reinstall, rather than just overwrite your files. In short, it's up to you, but you should think carefully about how large your application is likely to get before jumping in with the suggested approach.
Visual Studio Installer states that it is a best practice to install each file as an installer component. The heat utility provided with Wix also seems to follow the practice of putting every file in its own component.
InstallShield's component wizard uses InstallShield's setup best practice of placing portable executable files in their own component but groups all other files (e.g. unversioned files) by the common destination folder.
The advantage of practice one (each file in its own component) is that each file is set up as a key file which is important if you want these files to trigger repairs. It also allows automation of creating the components (e.g. heat) easier since you are creating a component for each file.
The disadvantages of practice one include the overhead of managing so many components and the bloating of the registry after the application is installed.
An advantage of practice 2 could be seen in an install that installs hundreds of graphics files to one directory. If you do not care about repair functionality, is there any reason to create hundreds of components for this install?
These 2 different practices are conflicting and I want to know which one that people actually use and why.
I always use the Microsoft approach (something similar to what InstallShield does):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa368269(VS.85).aspx
I think it's the best because:
- important files (EXE, DLL etc.) have their own component, so they can be repaired easily
- resource files are grouped together
- it allows an optimum components count (not too many to get a long install, but enough to allow an easy repair)
I also noticed that most commercial setup authoring tools use this approach.
I've written about this in the past and I'll try to find a link to it. I think you already understand the question and it's just time for you to decide what is important to you.
For me, I work on installs with 15,000+ files and we only service with major upgrades. For "Program Executables" we follow 1:1 principals ( a must for COM, Services, ShortCuts and so on anyways ) but for content/data files we actually do a 1 to many with no key file approach to cut down on our number of components. Sure, that means we won't be able to create an MSP that services just one or two content files here and there but for our business needs that's simply not important to us.
Resilency was a bit of a 4 letter word to us so having less key files makes us happier anyways. :-) BTW, VDPROJ also makes every registry key a keyfile of it's own component and that was quite painful for us triggering unneeded repairs.
All of this aside, for anyone who doesn't fully understand all of this, I'd stick to the 1:1 pattern until you come across a situation where you don't want to anymore and you understand the impact of making that choice.