[ZEUS__]

I'm ready for new file-checker

[tomasz86]

Mim0, on 21 June 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

Sure But could you explain these new lines? Could there problems with other updates be expected? Or are the if-conditions just true in combination of USP5 / Windows 2000?

Or could it be more safe to have something like this:

REM Example taken from line 3334 of current HFSLIP
IF "%VERSION%"=="2000" (
  IF EXIST HF\w2ksp5*.exe (
    IF %SP% LSS 5 (
      ....
    )
 )
)

around your additional lines? If you search for "USP" in the HFLIPS-script, you will find some infos that could help to confirm that Windows 2000 and USP5 will currently be used.

If you want to make it work only for USP 5.* then you can just add "IF EXIST HF\w2ksp5*.exe" like this

ECHO>>SVCPACK.INF [SetupHotfixesToRun]
IF EXIST HF\w2ksp5*.exe IF EXIST SOURCESS\I386\SVCPACK\*.exe IF EXIST SOURCESS\I386\SVCPACK.IN* DO (
        IF EXIST SOURCESS\I386\SVCPACK.IN_ EXPAND -R SOURCESS\I386\SVCPACK.IN_ >NUL
        FOR /F "DELIMS=" %%I IN ('DIR/B/ON SOURCESS\I386\SVCPACK\*.exe') DO FINDSTR/IL "%%I" SOURCESS\I386\SVCPACK.INF>>SVCPACK.INF
)

I wanted to make it more universal. Actually, HFSLIP completely ignores the already existing svcpack.inf and overwrites it with its own version. Fortunately there are no files in I386\SVCPACK in any of the official service packs so it's not an issue. Only in USP5.1 there's an EXE file there. I think the universal approach is better though because it will work for other unofficial service packs too (I'm sure there will be other SPs in the future), not only for USP 5.1. It has no effect on the official packages so there's really nothing to worry about it

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 21 June 2012 - 05:21 AM

[jvidal]

New flash player (yes, again!).
This time it's version 11.3.300.262, please, mimo, be sure to update the script!

bye!

Wait, for some reason, only the mozilla plugin was updated to 11.3.300.262, the AX version is still .257, maybe it'll be updated soon.

This post has been edited by jvidal: 21 June 2012 - 10:54 AM

[tomasz86]

Hey Mimo,

Please wait with adding the USP/SVCPACK related script. I've found one interesting thing in the HFSLIP's script. Theoretically it should add the *.exe file info to svcpack.inf even now. I'll try to investigate why it doesn't do it.

[tomasz86]

I've found the culprit.

It's this part:

IF EXIST SOURCE\cdromsp5.tst (
	IF "%NOCLEANSRC%"=="2" SET NOCLEANSRC=
	IF EXIST SOURCE\I386\SVCPACK\spsetup.exe ECHO>>WORK\SVCMAIN.TXT SPSETUP.EXE /q /n /z
	FOR /F %%I IN ('FINDSTR/IR /C:"USP 5\.1" SOURCE\cdromsp5.tst') DO SET VERSIONIE=2KIE6
)

Exactly this line:

IF EXIST SOURCE\I386\SVCPACK\spsetup.exe ECHO>>WORK\SVCMAIN.TXT SPSETUP.EXE /q /n /z

The problem here is that there's no "spsetup.exe" in USP 5.1 but there is "setupusp.exe". The line should look like this:

IF EXIST SOURCE\I386\SVCPACK\setupusp.exe ECHO>>WORK\SVCMAIN.TXT SETUPUSP.EXE /q /n /z

Spoiler

This is why I hate HFSLIP so much. Way too many things are hard coded

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 22 June 2012 - 10:07 AM

[bphlpt]

@tomasz86, I'm confused. It looks like you've said:

The problem is here, "A" (setupusp.exe), specifically this line, "B" (spsetup.exe), it should be "A" (setupusp.exe).

While I expected you to say:

The problem is here, "A", specifically this line, "A", it should be "B".

or

The problem is here, "B", specifically this line, "B", it should be "A".

Or did I misunderstand something? (That happens all the time. ) Please clarify.

Cheers and Regards

[tomasz86]

Fixed

[bphlpt]

Are there other SP's in use that do have "spsetup.exe"? If so, maybe having both lines, rather than editing the line, would be a better solution? That way all the bases would be covered yet not cause you any problems with SP5.2. Or was it just a typo that is just now coming to light?

Cheers and Regards

[tomasz86]

It seems to be just a typo. Official SPs don't use SVCPACK folder at all.

[Mim0]

new file-checker for XP:

2012-06-21
- Added: KB2685939 (MS12-036: Remote Desktop)
- Added: KB2699988 (MS12-037: Internet Explorer)
- Added: KB2709162 (MS12-041: Windows Kernel-Mode Drivers) 
- Added: KB2707511 (MS12-042: Windows Kernel)
- Added: Malicious Software Removal Tool 4.9.6301.0
- Removed: KB2621440 (MS12-020: Remote Desktop Protocol, replaced by KB2685939)
- Removed: KB2675157 (MS12-023: Internet Explorer, replaced by KB2699988)
- Removed: KB2676562 (MS12-034: Windows, Kernel and Kernel Mode Driver, replaced
  by KB2709162 and KB2707511)
- Removed: Malicious Software Removal Tool 4.8.6201.0

Download: HFSLIPFC v.2012/05/04 with WindowsXP-update-list v.2012/06/21

tomasz86, on 22 June 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

It seems to be just a typo. Official SPs don't use SVCPACK folder at all.

So I will fix this typo and publish a new HFSLIP asap! Thx for the info!

This post has been edited by Mim0: 23 June 2012 - 04:14 PM

[dziubek]

@Mim0

Thanks for the update.

Are you planning to make these changes suggested here ?

This post has been edited by dziubek: 24 June 2012 - 04:24 AM

[Mim0]

dziubek, on 24 June 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

Are you planning to make these changes suggested here ?

not really. should I?

Mim0, on 11 June 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

tomasz86, on 08 June 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

I'd like to suggest changing this line in HFSLIP's script:

SET SW1=/quiet /norestart

to

SET SW1=/q /n /z

...

Yes I think it could be a good idea to use your switches. But I suggest to define (overwrite) them in the HFANSWER.INI. What do you think?

[dziubek]

I do not know;) I suspect that the use of these switches will result in more compatibility with other installers...

[tomasz86]

/q /n /z

is exactly the same as

/quiet /norestart /nobackup

It's just the "/nobackup" option that is being added

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 24 June 2012 - 07:36 AM

[fenyo]

Hi!

Regarding this:

Mim0, on 21 October 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:

Thx to CEoCEo for the hint regarding HFSLIP and CWDIllegalInDllSearch

The new CWDIllegalInDllSearch will give a warning when found a problematic value of CWDIllegalInDllSearch in the registry. Also I added a hint in the update-list (table 6) to HFSLIP regarding this registry-value.

Mim0! May i suggest you to change WindowsXP-KB2264107-x86.reg to this? :
---------
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager]
"CWDIllegalInDllSearch"=dword:00000002
---------

I have three reasons for this!

1) M$ Groove 2007 (its installed with Office 2007 typical-install) gets mad with "CWDIllegalInDllSearch"=dword:FFFFFFFF
Every time i start IE8, it starts with "Error loading C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office 12\GrooveUtil.DLL"!
But when "CWDIllegalInDllSearch"=dword:00000002, there is no problem!

2) TYPE1 hotfixes can not extract itself when "CWDIllegalInDllSearch"=dword:FFFFFFFF, error message is "file is corrupt", and HFSLIP can not slipstream MANY hotfixes this way! (as CEoCEo said also)
(this whole problem took me many-many hours to discover, that "CWDIllegalInDllSearch"=dword:FFFFFFFF is the reason HFSLIP can't slipstream!!! -Yes, i've read JUST NOW the hint on your page regarding this)
But again, when "CWDIllegalInDllSearch"=dword:00000002, there is no problem!

3) "CWDIllegalInDllSearch"=dword:00000002 is enough protection for hijacking DLLs with remote locations!
If hijacking with local files, its too late anyways...

Regards,
Fenyo

[Mim0]

fenyo, on 25 June 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

...
Mim0! May i suggest you to change WindowsXP-KB2264107-x86.reg to this? :
...
"CWDIllegalInDllSearch"=dword:00000002
....

Thx for this statement. I also thought often sometmes about this. On one hand, everyone can modify this or can leave this file, but on the other hand, 2 is really enough.

Other opinions?

This post has been edited by Mim0: 25 June 2012 - 12:30 PM

[fenyo]

Mim0, on 25 June 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

On one hand, everyone can modify this or can leave this file,

Yeah, but i think most of the people just download the files and run HFSLIP, especially if they're just updating.
And next time they wonder why HFSLIP does not slipstream updates...
Just as i did.
You could save many research-hours for people by setting the file on your page to dword:00000002.

[ZEUS__]

fenyo, on 25 June 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Mim0, on 25 June 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

On one hand, everyone can modify this or can leave this file,

Yeah, but i think most of the people just download the files and run HFSLIP, especially if they're just updating.
And next time they wonder why HFSLIP does not slipstream updates...
Just as i did.
You could save many research-hours for people by setting the file on your page to dword:00000002.

hi,
my WINDOWSXP-KB2264107-X86.REG file is in SVCPACK folder. if I just edit this file and make iso, is it OK? I just don't understand what the slipstream process with this update? Should I run hfslip again to slipstream updates?

[fenyo]

ZEUS__, on 25 June 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

hi,
my WINDOWSXP-KB2264107-X86.REG file is in SVCPACK folder. if I just edit this file and make iso, is it OK? I just don't understand what the slipstream process with this update? Should I run hfslip again to slipstream updates?

Yes, it's OK! You don't have to re-run HFSLIP just for this.
But don't forget to edit this file in HFSVCPACK folder also, if you don't want to edit it again after every run of HFSLIP.

[ZEUS__]

fenyo, on 25 June 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

ZEUS__, on 25 June 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

hi,
my WINDOWSXP-KB2264107-X86.REG file is in SVCPACK folder. if I just edit this file and make iso, is it OK? I just don't understand what the slipstream process with this update? Should I run hfslip again to slipstream updates?

Yes, it's OK! You don't have to re-run HFSLIP just for this.
But don't forget to edit this file in HFSVCPACK folder also, if you don't want to edit it again after every run of HFSLIP.

I understand, thanks for your information.