In install4j, can you include both 32 and 64 bit versions of an application in one install package and let the user decide which to install if the OS is 64-bit? Would the easiest/best solution be to create three projects? i.e. one parent/two children? I'm hesitant to do this because the majority of the included files are not architecture-specific and I'd like to keep everything in one project.
I'm also not tied to install4j if another installer can accomplish this, especially WiX, which is used by other groups in our company.
Currently install4j cannot create a single media file for 32-bit and 64-bit. Since the 32-bit media file works on 64-bit Windows as well, this is usually not a big problem. Common 32-bit/64-bit media files may be implemented for install4j 6.
In any case, you do not need separate projects for 32-bit and 64-bit installers. You just add two media files in the "Media" step of the install4j IDE, one for the 32-bit installer and another one for the 64-bit installer, with different settings on the "32-bit or 64-bit" step of the media wizard.
As for platform specific files, just add two file sets and exclude them as appropriate in the "Customize project defaults->Exclude files" step of the media wizard.
Related
What are all the things we should take care of while writing a WiX installer for 64-bit software?
What if I want to support both 32- and 64-bit versions?
I want to release one version of the installer, that will be possible to install softwares for both platforms, according to the host OS.
Separate MSIs for separate architectures:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/heaths/archive/2008/01/15/different-packages-are-required-for-different-processor-architectures.aspx
and people use a WiX bundle to choose which depending on the system.
You can have a common source file for both MSIs, this kind of thing:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2007/08/09/4317654.aspx
http://alekdavis.blogspot.com/2011/05/build-32-and-64-bit-installers-using.html
I have an InstallShield Basic MSI project which builds both 32-bit and 64-bit installers using Release Flags mechanism to build the different packages with the correct Template Summary, etc. One of my Components is an explorer.exe shell extension, so in order for this to work it needs to be registered in the 64-bit node in the registry when installed on windows 64-bit, NOT in the Wow6432Node. However, because this is a 32-bit Component to Windows Installer it will get registered as such and go down the Wow6432Node. I am told by InstallShield that this is native Windows Installer behavior and there is really no way around this other than Custom Actions (which I have already resorted to).
Do I have to resort to running regasm? This is what I currently do however I would rather not use Custom Actions for something like this. Also, it appears that other products have the same pattern: a 64-bit shell extension, however installed down program files (x86). I see TFS Power Tools and WinZip doing this for example. For these products, I do NOT see regasm.exe running so I assume they have some other mechanism for this.
Any ideas?
Did you try to set msidbComponentAttributesDisableRegistryReflection (Component table) attribute for that component?
Our company uses WIX for its installers, and we are now upgrading our application from 32-Bit to 64-Bit. For every new version, we always provide an upgrade path from the previous ones.
TODO list :
Binaries should now reside in the "C:\Program Files" folder instead of "C:\Program Files (x86)".
Registry entries should now reside in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\%COMPANY% instead of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\%COMPANY%
Log files, configuration files, and any custom files/registry entries needs to be moved over to their new 64-Bit locations.
Considered the special aspect of this upgrade, we are inquiring the community regarding its know-how.
Presumably you'll continue to have a 32bit MSI for 32bit customers. So I'd approach this was another MSI and reuse as many fragments as possible. Your directory table and ComponentIDs will be different and I'd also give it a different UpgradeCode GUID. In your MajorUpgrade I'd search for products having the 32bit UpgradeCode and the 62bit UpgradeCode and remove both when found.
I'd also make sure that you need to even do this. For example if I deploy a .NET app with no native dependencies ( say IIS, Winforms, WPF, Windows Service ) it'll JIT up 64bit no problem when possible even though I installed it using a 32bit MSI to 64bit locations. No harm no foul.
I've been working in an engine in Visual Studio 2012 that supports rendering with Direct3D 9 and Direct3D 11. However I'm getting some new people to help with the project and they would prefer to work on Visual Studio 2010 because that's the version they own and use. So I decided to convert the project to be built with VS2010's v100 platform toolset.
I'm getting close to getting it to work but I can't include DirectXMath.h, necessary for the DirectXTK and some utility functions I'm using. It's part of the Windows 8 SDK and included in VS2012, but VS2010 doesn't seem to find it.
Anyone knows how to get it to be included using environment variables so that it works for everybody on the team, and in a way that works on Win7 too?
Thanks.
To make new teammates be able to code in VS2010 you have several options:
You don't need to change platform toolset to old one and rewrite your codebase. VS2010 developers can just install Windows 8 SDK, and use v110 toolset. To help them, configure "VC++ directories" in project properties as pointed in this article (change macro variables, which points to old Windows SDK, to explicit locations of new Windows SDK):
In “Executable Directories” replace $(WindowsSdkDir)binwith$(ProgramFiles)\Windows Kits\8.0\bin\x86`
In “Include Directories” add $(ProgramFiles)\Windows Kits\8.0\Include\um;$(ProgramFiles)\Windows Kits\8.0\Include\shared at
the beginning and remove $(WindowsSdkDir)include
In “Library Directories” replace $(WindowsSdkDir)lib with $(ProgramFiles)\Windows Kits\8.0\lib\win8\um\x86
In “Exclude Directories” replace $(WindowsSdkDir)include with $(ProgramFiles)\Windows
Kits\8.0\Include\um;$(ProgramFiles)\Windows Kits\8.0\Include\shared
When targeting x64, replace x86 with x64
If you really want to downgrade toolset from v110 to v100, then you will need to make use old standalone DirectX SDK. Before, Windows SDK and DirectX SDK was separate. They was merged since Windows 7 SDK. When merging, Microsoft decidede to remove some stuff and also renamed some files, for example, standalone SDK contains math in #include <xmmath.h>.
You can combine both: create multiple project/platform configurations and inmplement conditional compilation via #ifdef where VS2010 configuration will fail to find headers/compile. For example you can use C++11 features in VS2012 branch of code, but in VS2010 branch you use only C++03 features.
I would prefer first option, but it is up to you to decide.
P.S. As far as I remember, project files from VS2012 (.vcxproj) cannot be opened in VS2010 (it knows only .vcproj), so you cannot share it. You will probably want to install VS2010, make .vcproj and maintain both files. It can be pain when you change project options in one, and forget to change in other, so be careful. Also, consider to move all your team to single IDE, or at least single build system (for example, CMake).
Happy coding!
I am trying to create a .msi database using Wix to install a driver package.
Now this driver package is made to run on all platforms and can be installed on any platform (any version of windows, 2k and later, x86 or x64) by right clicking on the .inf file and selecting the "Install" option. Because the package doesn't need multiple versions for different platforms out there, I want to create a single msi file for all platforms.
All went fine until I hit this bottleneck: I am suppose to link with either dfxapp_x86.wixlib or dfxapp_x64.wixlib depending on the platform I wish to install on. This will lead to having two different installers, one for each platform, which I don't want. Including both library files won't work, since they link with dlls that contain the same symbols.
What can I do to have a single installation package for all platforms in this case?
Thanks.
Neither MSI nor DIfxApp support a single package for multiple platforms. You need one per platform.