I've found that many of the test applications I've tried installing failed due to the lack of MSIEXEC. If it is implemented, could you tell me where to find it? If not, I'd like to contribute, could you tell me if any work has been done and who to coordinate with?
Thanks,
-Scott
On Monday 09 December 2002 17:54, Scott Cote wrote:
I've found that many of the test applications I've tried installing failed due to the lack of MSIEXEC. If it is implemented, could you tell me where to find it? If not, I'd like to contribute, could you tell me if any work has been done and who to coordinate with?
It is not implemented. That's sure. (Tough installing MS Office 2k installs it for you) I have not heard anybody speaking about implementing it on this list (I'm listening here since about a year).
Regards Zsolt
"Zsolt" == Zsolt Rizsanyi rizsanyi@myrealbox.com writes:
Zsolt> On Monday 09 December 2002 17:54, Scott Cote wrote: >> I've found that many of the test applications I've tried installing >> failed due to the lack of MSIEXEC. If it is implemented, could you >> tell me where to find it? If not, I'd like to contribute, could you >> tell me if any work has been done and who to coordinate with?
Zsolt> It is not implemented. That's sure. (Tough installing MS Office Zsolt> 2k installs it for you) I have not heard anybody speaking about Zsolt> implementing it on this list (I'm listening here since about a Zsolt> year).
We don't need to implement every MS dll. We only need to implement: - core dlls (kernel32, comclt32, ...) which applications expect to be available - dlls used for compiling/porting (msvcrt)
I guess this msiexec is not loaded to the system after a clean Windowsinstall. In this case the installer must cope with the situation that msiexec is not there and must provide it itself.
Bye
Uwe Bonnes wrote:
"Zsolt" == Zsolt Rizsanyi rizsanyi@myrealbox.com writes:
Zsolt> On Monday 09 December 2002 17:54, Scott Cote wrote: >> I've found that many of the test applications I've tried installing >> failed due to the lack of MSIEXEC. If it is implemented, could you >> tell me where to find it? If not, I'd like to contribute, could you >> tell me if any work has been done and who to coordinate with? Zsolt> It is not implemented. That's sure. (Tough installing MS Office Zsolt> 2k installs it for you) I have not heard anybody speaking about Zsolt> implementing it on this list (I'm listening here since about a Zsolt> year).We don't need to implement every MS dll. We only need to implement:
- core dlls (kernel32, comclt32, ...) which applications expect to be available
- dlls used for compiling/porting (msvcrt)
I guess this msiexec is not loaded to the system after a clean Windowsinstall. In this case the installer must cope with the situation that msiexec is not there and must provide it itself.
And just as a bit more info, MSI can be downloaded freely and directly from Microsoft. Just go to http://search.microsoft.com/default.asp
Type "msi" into the search box, and a couple different versions are available. Seems to work fine.
Zsolt Rizsanyi wrote:
It is not implemented. That's sure. (Tough installing MS Office 2k installs it for you) I have not heard anybody speaking about implementing it on this list (I'm listening here since about a year).
Regards Zsolt
As MSI is an MS redistributable, isn't it perfectly legal for us to put a copy of it on our web site? Does this project have a lawyer that can give an authorative answer to that question?
Shachar
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Zsolt Rizsanyi wrote:
It is not implemented. That's sure. (Tough installing MS Office 2k installs it for you) I have not heard anybody speaking about implementing it on this list (I'm listening here since about a year).
Regards Zsolt
As MSI is an MS redistributable, isn't it perfectly legal for us to put a copy of it on our web site? Does this project have a lawyer that can give an authorative answer to that question?
Shachar
To answer my own question - they require that the installer only be redistributed with an application, that the application add significant functionality to the redistibutables themselves, and that the application be only compatible with MS Windows. I guess we can't put it on our site, though I very much doubt they are allowed to request that last paragraph. Still, we can direct people to their site and tell them to D/L it from there, if there are any problems.
Sh.
On Monday 09 December 2002 04:53 pm, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
To answer my own question - they require that the installer only be redistributed with an application, that the application add significant functionality to the redistibutables themselves,
how nice of them ;)
and that the application be only compatible with MS Windows.
sheesh, typical. I take it back.
I guess we can't put it on our site, though I very much doubt they are allowed to request that last paragraph. Still, we can direct people to their site and tell them to D/L it from there, if there are any problems.
IMO, eventually wine should probably implement msiexec, but it might be pretty challenging, and, considering it's "just a free download" I guess it's a pretty low priority compared to things like uh, cabinet.dll (I heard somebody was supposed to be working on this but was screwing around with kde3.1rc5 instead :(. "Potato Guy" is a real breakthrough of modern OOP programming techniques, you should all check it out! Just think: only 18 hours of compiling, and you, too, can have a small worm crawl across on top of your foreground window. I think this means Linux has finally caught up with Microsoft!).
Er... but I digress...
Those MSI's are really nasty. IIRC, theyre like one big relational-database-style table in there, and, since they are cramming all the features of this particular "app" (the "Windows Installer Service," I guess) into a single table, you can guess how elegant and beautifully orthogonal the results are. I haven't really messed with them but I get the impression it might be kinda hairy/undocumented territory.
Anyways, what was the point of my post? Oh yeah: despite all of the above reasons not to implement MSIEXEC for wine, I think, in an ideal world, you wouldn't need to go to Microsoft and download things just to run installers in wine. The more wine users depend on MS to make their wine work, the easier it is for MS to pull the plug, screw it up, etc. (which is not to say that MS has been taking such measures against wine... yet... but if past performance is any indicator of future returns, as soon as wine becomes a threat to the OS monopoly in their view of the world, this could instantly change).
Oh, and while I'm on a rant... if we wanted to be smart-asses and play dangerous lawyer games, we could redistribute msiexec with a native compile of winemine or some other small frob.
Ultimately, my guess is Microsoft simply wouldn't want wine-associated folks redistributing msiexec, whether their rules allow for this or not... so IMO nobody should do so unless they are willing to duke it out with an army of lawyers, go to the media, start a legal defense fund, endure nuisance lawsuits, etc., over the issue -- however remote that possibility may be, being prepared for the worst-case scenario is the only way to be ready for life's nasty surprises when they do come... And there is also that aphorism about picking one's battles...
"Greg" == Greg Turner gmturner007@ameritech.net writes:
Greg> Ultimately, my guess is Microsoft simply wouldn't want Greg> wine-associated folks redistributing msiexec, whether their rules Greg> allow for this or not... so IMO nobody should do so unless they Greg> are willing to duke it out with an army of lawyers, go to the Greg> media, start a legal defense fund, endure nuisance lawsuits, etc., Greg> over the issue -- however remote that possibility may be, being Greg> prepared for the worst-case scenario is the only way to be ready Greg> for life's nasty surprises when they do come... And there is also Greg> that aphorism about picking one's battles...
It's not wine that needs msiexec, it's some application with it's installer. So this application has to care for msiexec.
If things change and msiexec get's part of the ms core distribution, we can reconsider...
Bye
Uwe Bonnes wrote:
It's not wine that needs msiexec, it's some application with it's installer. So this application has to care for msiexec.
If things change and msiexec get's part of the ms core distribution, we can reconsider...
Bye
Actually it is included with Windows 2000, XP and Me etc: Windows® Installer is an installation and configuration service that reduces the total cost of ownership. The installer ships with Microsoft® Windows® .NET Server 2003 family, Windows® XP, Windows® 2000, and Windows® Millennium Edition (Windows® Me). The installer is also provided as a service pack to Microsoft® Windows NT® version 4.0., Windows® 98, and Windows® 95. (from http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/msi/setup/windows_installer_start_pa...) Although it depends what you call the ms core distribution I guess...
David
"David" == David Fraser davidf@sjsoft.com writes:
David> Actually it is included with Windows 2000, XP and Me etc: David> Windows® Installer is an installation and configuration service David> that reduces the total cost of ownership. The installer ships David> with Microsoft® Windows® .NET Server 2003 family, Windows® XP, David> Windows® 2000, and Windows® Millennium Edition (Windows® Me). The David> installer is also provided as a service pack to Microsoft® David> Windows NT® version 4.0., Windows® 98, and Windows® 95. (from David> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/msi/setup/windows_installer_start_pa...) David> Although it depends what you call the ms core distribution I
Okay, now even I understand that msiexec is getting a problem.
Argh!
Uwe Bonnes wrote:
Okay, now even I understand that msiexec is getting a problem.
Argh!
Well I think Windows 2000 shiped with MSI 1.0, which was, to put it mildly, inadequate.
Which is not to say we are going to have a nice time of it. Not at all. I have played around with MSI a bit back in the times (about two years ago), and it is going to be a bitch. It is a semi-relational database, and it has SQL language to make it tick. It has a bunch of mandatory tables, and a few less-mandatory. It carries it's own CAB files inside a streams table. The format for the binary file will need to be understood.
Also, I know of at least one table that is there if queried by name, but does not appear if table listing is being requested. That particular table appeared in the MSDN docs. What about the others? If we are going to be rev-enging the MSI file format, that is not going to be much of a problem (Probably!), and I don't really think that the MSI itself is going to have too many undocumented APIs (let's not forget that most installations are produced using InstallShield and Wise, not by MS).
Also, MSI installed apps have a special kind of shortcut that tracks uses and allows for delayed installations (i.e. - install just the icon now, we'll install the actual file when needed). I'm pretty sure there is a heavy dependancy of MSI on file and directory tracking (it's ability to recover slightly missing installs).
So, it's not going to be easy, and there is a lot of infrastructure still missing.
Shachar
Do you really think that rpm/deb are nasty ? ;) The Windows Installer Service is just a rpm-like (guess what distribution I run ;)
Those MSI's are really nasty. IIRC, theyre like one big relational-database-style table in there, and, since they are cramming all the features of this particular "app" (the "Windows Installer Service," I guess) into a single table, you can guess how elegant and
beautifully orthogonal the results are. I haven't really messed with
them but I get the impression it might be kinda hairy/undocumented territory.
===== Sylvain Petreolle spetreolle@users.sourceforge.net Fight against Spam ! http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html ICQ #170597259
"Don't think you are. Know you are." Morpheus in Matrix, chapter 15.
___________________________________________________________ Soyez solidaire soutenez laction du Téléthon avec Yahoo! France. http://www1.telethon.fr/030-Espace-Relais-Dons/webtirelire1.asp?hebergeur_id...
Indeed, and quite a few apps are starting to ship only with MSIs. As XP replaces 98, that is only going to become a bigger problem.
For now, having a script which downloads and installs the MSI system from microsoft.com should suffice. It'd have to fake user agent strings, but that's no big deal. MS won't pull that download for quite some time, at least until the user base of 98 is negligable, so it's not an immediately pressing problem.
David Fraser wrote:
Uwe Bonnes wrote:
It's not wine that needs msiexec, it's some application with it's installer. So this application has to care for msiexec.
If things change and msiexec get's part of the ms core distribution, we can reconsider...
Bye
Actually it is included with Windows 2000, XP and Me etc: Windows® Installer is an installation and configuration service that reduces the total cost of ownership. The installer ships with Microsoft® Windows® .NET Server 2003 family, Windows® XP, Windows® 2000, and Windows® Millennium Edition (Windows® Me). The installer is also provided as a service pack to Microsoft® Windows NT® version 4.0., Windows® 98, and Windows® 95. (from http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/msi/setup/windows_installer_start_pa...)
Although it depends what you call the ms core distribution I guess...
David
-
David Fraser -
Duane Clark -
Greg Turner -
Mike Hearn -
Scott Cote -
Shachar Shemesh -
Shachar Shemesh -
Sylvain Petreolle -
Uwe Bonnes -
Zsolt Rizsanyi