[Martin H]

@Mim0

Would it be possible to implement using '*' or something else in the ignore lists?

I'm reffering to e.g. the lame MRT update(which changes versions each month):

+IGNORE
H|HF\windows-kb890830-v3.4.exe
-

No biggy, but just a thought...

And again, thanks for all your nice work!

[jvidal]

I think you should change the description for LegitCheckControl.cab to something more "understandable", like "Windows Genuine Validation" or similar.
The other name doesn't actually say anything. It doesn't mean anything also. the phrase has no logic in it.

bye!

BTW: I survived the Eartquake!

This post has been edited by jvidal: 03 March 2010 - 01:51 PM

[tommyp]

mimo - can you add in a check for any RAR files in HFAAO and alert the user that rar files should be remade as CABs or 7z's? Rar files don't work well when placed there. Thanks!

[jvidal]

why would anyone place RAR files knowing they don't work????

[tommyp]

jvidal, on 28 February 2010 - 05:21 PM, said:

why would anyone place RAR files knowing they don't work????

Because not everybody RTFM.

[Kiki Burgh]

hello! posted my findings on this in test rel thread. see change log 1.3.0 ... cheers!

[Mim0]

Martin H, on 26 February 2010 - 07:15 PM, said:

Would it be possible to implement using '*' or something else in the ignore lists?

I'm reffering to e.g. the lame MRT update(which changes versions each month):

+IGNORE
H|HF\windows-kb890830-v3.4.exe
-

Done! You can use regular expressions now in the sense in FINDSTR (see FINDSTR /? for details).
But regarding yours: You can place a dot (.) as the wildcard for a single character in the filename:

H|HF\windows-kb890830-v3...exe

But because the backslash is the escape-character you have to replace it also by the dot:

H|HF.windows-kb890830-v3...exe

But you can it make it now more simple: just write KB...

H|kb890830

jvidal, on 28 February 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:

I think you should change the description for LegitCheckControl.cab to something more "understandable", like "Windows Genuine Validation" or similar.
The other name doesn't actually say anything. It's doesn't mean anything also. the phrase has no logic in it.

Yes, if it will be more clear I will do it. I don't know these file and I think the better info comes from users who are using it THX

tommyp, on 28 February 2010 - 01:22 PM, said:

mimo - can you add in a check for any RAR files in HFAAO and alert the user that rar files should be remade as CABs or 7z's? Rar files don't work well when placed there. Thanks!

It's included now!

2010-03-01
- Changed: The description of LegitCheckControl.cab
- Added: Regular expressions allowed in IGNORE-list. How to use RegEx
         will be described in the INI now.
- Added: Hint for RAR-packed AddOn(s) (*.rar) found in HFAAO
- Added: When using hints for multiple files (by using wildcards), all
         matching files will now be listed (instead of only one like before)

Mimo

[Lilla]

Mimo,

Suggestion to make your list a bit more intutitive to use, especially for new users...

now...
HFSLIP 1.7.9 (final) / HFSLIP 1.7.10 (beta H)

suggestion, add links below (or use whatever links you think is best)...
HFSLIP 1.7.9 (final) / HFSLIP 1.7.10 (beta H)

Thank you for the brilliant HFSLIPFC,
Lilla

This post has been edited by Lilla: 01 March 2010 - 02:30 PM

[Martin H]

Thanks alot Mimo! You rock, mate!

[theruan]

Hi is there any kind of intention on adding the updates that are shown in thehotifxshare(google for it), all of them are downloads originaly from microsoft, you most probably know it already, i have found at least 20 updates in there that are needed in the update process.
Tomorrow, i will a list of the updates a have used, and a list of the ones that could be directly slipstreamed, i'm at work right now, and no net until friday at home.
Thanks for this great job

[Mim0]

Lilla, on 01 March 2010 - 02:30 PM, said:

Suggestion to make your list a bit more intutitive to use, especially for new users...

now...
HFSLIP 1.7.9 (final) / HFSLIP 1.7.10 (beta H)

suggestion, add links below (or use whatever links you think is best)...
HFSLIP 1.7.9 (final) / HFSLIP 1.7.10 (beta H)

Hi Lilla,
thx for this idea. I've thought about it and I come to the conclusion to leave it as it is, because I want to recommend the latest beta. If I add links on th top of the page, a user will probably use the final instead of the latest beta (betas often have the touch of 'unstable').
But I've modified the line with the download-links for HFSLIP in table 6. Until now the final was more in the foreground than the current beta (which is to prefer). I changed it now in that way, that the latest beta stands more in the foreground. What do you think?

theruan, on 02 March 2010 - 08:42 AM, said:

Hi is there any kind of intention on adding the updates that are shown in thehotifxshare(google for it), all of them are downloads originaly from microsoft, you most probably know it already, i have found at least 20 updates in there that are needed in the update process.
Tomorrow, i will a list of the updates a have used, and a list of the ones that could be directly slipstreamed, i'm at work right now, and no net until friday at home.
Thanks for this great job

Interesting! Yes, I would like to see your list. : I've just quick looked at this side. Many hotfixes!!!

[Martin H]

Quote

"i have found at least 20 updates in there that are needed in the update process."

Needed??? Hotfixes are fixes for non-widespread, non-critical issues, which is developed fast and hasen't gone through as much regression-testing as the normal updates...

Also, since HFSLIP allready is using the QFE branch of the updates, then the files in the updates allready include the fixes from the hotfixes(only for the included files in the updates that is...)

[Lilla]

Mim0, on 02 March 2010 - 02:08 PM, said:

Lilla, on 01 March 2010 - 02:30 PM, said:

Suggestion to make your list a bit more intutitive to use, especially for new users...

now...
HFSLIP 1.7.9 (final) / HFSLIP 1.7.10 (beta H)

suggestion, add links below (or use whatever links you think is best)...
HFSLIP 1.7.9 (final) / HFSLIP 1.7.10 (beta H)

Hi Lilla,
thx for this idea. I've thought about it and I come to the conclusion to leave it as it is, because I want to recommend the latest beta. If I add links on th top of the page, a user will probably use the final instead of the latest beta (betas often have the touch of 'unstable').
But I've modified the line with the download-links for HFSLIP in table 6. Until now the final was more in the foreground than the current beta (which is to prefer). I changed it now in that way, that the latest beta stands more in the foreground. What do you think?

I like it! I like that you give a recommendation as this will help people!

Lilla

This post has been edited by Lilla: 02 March 2010 - 04:26 PM

[tommyp]

First off, sorry for contaminating this thread with an off-topic post.

As far as I am concerned the beta is pretty stable. I still await others to chime in (on the right thread) to say it works for them too. If I don't hear anything, then I'll assume it works and release it. I'll give it until the end of the week and then I can call it a day.

[theruan]

Martin H, on 02 March 2010 - 02:32 PM, said:

Quote

"i have found at least 20 updates in there that are needed in the update process."

Needed??? Hotfixes are fixes for non-widespread, non-critical issues, which is developed fast and hasen't gone through as much regression-testing as the normal updates...

Also, since HFSLIP allready is using the QFE branch of the updates, then the files in the updates allready include the fixes from the hotfixes(only for the included files in the updates that is...)

Sorry, i may have used a worng word for that, i'm brazilian, my english isn't that good, lol.
A good word would be as optional updates, and also, you that obviously knows more about updates Tommyp could take a better look on them.
In HF folder:
WindowsXP-KB944898-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB945060-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB945436-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB946554-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB946666-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB946775-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB948046-v2-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB948101-v3-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB948277-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB948720-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB949033-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB949127-v2-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB949764-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB949900-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB950162-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB950312-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB950565-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB950616-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB950982-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB951312-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB951347-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB951624-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB951709-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB951822-v2-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB951937-v2-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB952079-v2-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB952117-v2-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB953028-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB817688-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB889320-v2-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB932521-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB940648-x86-PTB.EXE
WindowsXP-KB943326-x86-PTB.EXE
In HFSVCPACK_SW1 folder:
WindowsXP-KB974266.exe


All of this ones were taken from thehotfixshare, i know that may be not all of them are available in every language and so far will sometimes be hard to acquire them, but they still are hotfixes that could or not be added to the list.
They are optional, and still have to check if they are not replaced already.
What i can say for sure is that i have tried using them with nlite to see if any problems related to older updates beeing used and so far it showed me only five(or something like that) updates that were replaced that i already removed from my list.

Also i think you could remove this:
missing (S): HF\WindowsXP-KB960225-x86-PTB.EXE (MS09-007: SChannel (Secure Channel))
as this check in my opinion is not need 'cause it's replaced, only the new one sould be checked.

Thanks
TheRuan

This post has been edited by theruan: 04 March 2010 - 09:37 PM

[Mim0]

theruan, on 04 March 2010 - 09:34 PM, said:

Also i think you could remove this:
missing (S): HF\WindowsXP-KB960225-x86-PTB.EXE (MS09-007: SChannel (Secure Channel))
as this check in my opinion is not need 'cause it's replaced, only the new one sould be checked.

What ist the new one?

As far as I know KB960225 can be replaced by KB968389. If KB968389 is existing in HF the file-checker will not report KB960225 as missing.

THX for the list.

Mimo

[theruan]

Mim0, on 04 March 2010 - 11:29 PM, said:

theruan, on 04 March 2010 - 09:34 PM, said:

Also i think you could remove this:
missing (S): HF\WindowsXP-KB960225-x86-PTB.EXE (MS09-007: SChannel (Secure Channel))
as this check in my opinion is not need 'cause it's replaced, only the new one sould be checked.

What ist the new one?

As far as I know KB960225 can be replaced by KB968389. If KB968389 is existing in HF the file-checker will not report KB960225 as missing.

THX for the list.

Mimo

Exactly, but the file checker doesn't need to search for the older one, just the new one.
In my opinion it should just say that KB968389 is missing or not found. And if the older one is present say it's replaced by KB968389. Just that, as there is no need to someone download something if it's already old.
I'm sayind this because in the speed this project is going on, in two or three months the checks will be to many, lol.
Also i was thinking about to help with other updates, like legit check, optional updates like ever needed addons flash for firefox and others, i'm just thinking yet where i could put the files.
But of course if there interest on that.

About the list if you want i could try to verify the ENU one 'cause they might have many more than in my language, i will probably do that next week or the other.

Do someone know what's the command line to extract files from the hotfixes that have .sfx inside seen with normal winrar or 7z ? It would make my life easier to verify the files on hotfixshare.

This post has been edited by theruan: 04 March 2010 - 11:42 PM

[Mim0]

theruan, on 04 March 2010 - 11:34 PM, said:

Exactly, but the file checker doesn't need to search for the older one, just the new one.
In my opinion it should just say that KB968389 is missing or not found.

After some discussions with others I tried to suit everybody with INI-options what shall be listed. If you set ADVISORIES=1 (or empty because 1 is default) then KB968389 will be listed as missing if it not present in HF.

theruan, on 04 March 2010 - 11:34 PM, said:

And if the older one is present say it's replaced by KB968389.

Independend from INI-settings:
- KB960225 will be reported as obsolete when both (KB960225 and KB968389) are present.
- KB960225 will not reported as missing if KB968389 is present

This post has been edited by Mim0: 05 March 2010 - 01:20 AM

[tommyp]

theruan - You need to open a command window and use the filename with a /X switch to unpack each hotfix. I have a VERY STRONG feeling that the hotfixes you list are either not needed or not supported. Tell us, when you load windows using mimo's list and hfslip, do all of those hotfixes you list come up to be installed? If not, then you don't need them. Another thing you should check is whether or not the hotfix list you proposed has any superceded any other hotfixes.

mimo - don't pull your hair out incorporating theruan's hotfix list. Let theruan post his results. This same non-essential hotfix situation came up a number of times several years back. The end story was always the same. The OP would eventaully say that the files weren't needed after all.

This post has been edited by tommyp: 05 March 2010 - 05:56 PM

[Martin H]

No, the hotfixes dosen't show up on WU/MU, as they are hotfixes and not updates and comes from xable' site: www.thehotfixshare.net (hotfixes only!).

As a sidepoint, i've never understood why HFSLIP insists(like nLite) on using the QFE branch of the updates...

Here's what msft states in each hotfix kb article:

Quote

However, this hotfix is intended to correct only the problem that is described in this article. Apply this hotfix only to systems that are experiencing this specific problem. This hotfix might receive additional testing. Therefore, if you are not severely affected by this problem, we recommend that you wait for the next software update that contains this hotfix.

Also in msft's own hotfix explenation:

Quote

Hotfixes are distributed by Microsoft Product Support Services to address a specific customer situation. Hotfixes are produced quickly to provide immediate assistance to specific Microsoft customers. Therefore, hotfixes may not be tested as thoroughly as security updates, critical updates, updates, update rollups, drivers, and feature packs. Microsoft maintains different development environments to isolate security updates, critical updates, updates, update rollups, drivers, and feature packs from hotfixes and the ongoing development work that is being performed by Microsoft for subsequent service packs. This process minimizes the risk for customers by allowing them to install only fixes that address widespread critical issues, such as security vulnerabilities, and that do not include hotfix files.

HFSLIP then incorporates those hotfix fixes for each slipped file in the sourcess folder:

Quote

Files in the <cardinal point>QFE folders are cumulative and contain both the GDR-class fix and all previous hotfixes that affect the included binaries.

Anyway, just my 2 cents... And sorry for off-topic'nes..