Tomcat76

HFSLIP - Test releases

2,380 posts in this topic

TC, please undo. The way it worked before is far better. Let's say for instance you run a reducer for some file. The reducer also reduces some extra files too, in addition to installation infs (if there is one). There are too many cross-references and only asking for trouble. The only way around this would be to hardcode all the inter-relations like nlite. It's way too much work to implement and not worth the extra effort. Nlite is easier to use for reducing, and there is lots of support for it already.

Bottom line, it's a catch 22 situation. Delete first and then add -or- add first and then delete. I chose the latter, because of all the installation infs and the interdependancies. For example with Tain's case. He ran the wordpad reducer, meaning he didn't want it. He also had it in the hfexpert. So either he wants it or he doesn't want it. See what I mean? Catch 22.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the purpose of HFEXPERT\WIN to just add files to the source... no registration, no special stuff done to them?

Please note that I'm not talking about HFEXPERT\CODECS nor HFEXPERT\APPREPLACEMENT. These are "special". No installation INFs are created for files in HFEXPERT\WIN...

Did I get this wrong?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TC, I understand that it is only the hfexpert\win folder. I guess it's a matter of how the user interprets hfcleanup and hfexpert, and which came first the chicken or the egg.

I suppose you have a point though. However, it *may* break the special functionality of hfcleanup that I frequently use (maybe others too).

Perhaps you should set up a poll and ask the community which they prefer. Ask if they want to add then remove -or- remove then add. Or in other words, which takes priority, hfexpert or hfcleanup. Right now, hfcleanup has precedence. Perhaps I assumed incorrectly when I first coded in hfcleanup and hfexpert (and built reduction files that work with it).

Edited by tommyp
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't intend to break anything. Just let me know of potential issues and I'll see if they can be fixed.

I don't think that the question should be "which comes first". It's more a question of "which is allowed to undo changes of which".

In the previous releases of HFSLIP, HFCLEANUP (additionally) removes files that are added through HFEXPERT\WIN. Maybe I see it wrongly, but to me that totally nullifies the use of HFEXPERT\WIN. Why would one place files in HFEXPERT\WIN if they may be deleted?

I think that the only interaction between them which should/could be allowed is to force-add files that are deleted by one or more reduction filesets. This way, you don't need to edit filesets to try out different things.

The basic purposes are not changed: HFCLEANUP is used to remove stuff and HFEXPERT is used to add stuff.

I'm only changing a con into a pro:

Old con = HFCLEANUP removes files that are added through HFEXPERT

New pro = HFEXPERT\WIN can be used (misused) to override decisions of HFCLEANUP

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's KB912945 doing?

@dziubek

Is everything OK with CDImageGUI?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example with Tain's case. He ran the wordpad reducer, meaning he didn't want it. He also had it in the hfexpert. So either he wants it or he doesn't want it. See what I mean? Catch 22.
Addons avoid this situation altogether, correct?
The basic purposes are not changed: HFCLEANUP is used to remove stuff and HFEXPERT is used to add stuff.

I'm only changing a con into a pro:

Old con = HFCLEANUP removes files that are added through HFEXPERT

New pro = HFEXPERT\WIN can be used (misused) to override decisions of HFCLEANUP

I vote for Tomcat's method...my reasoning is that HFCLEANUP is a bundle that I anticipate downloading/unzipping whenever a new version is posted whereas HFEXPERT/WIN is all mine...I would rather just update HFLCEANUP and forget about it. No worries about deconfliction on the user's part such as combing through the reducers and deleting things or worrying about what is new.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How's KB912945 doing?

@dziubek

Is everything OK with CDImageGUI?

:( no, this addon doesn't install still.

KB912945 integrated faultlessly.

---

dziubek

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when people post & host untested Application Add On CAB files.

According to the INI settings of the CDImage AAO, the files should be all in the system32 folder. No biggie there. Reading deeper, the file naming scheme is this

CDImagex.cpi ->renamed to CDImageGUI.cpi

CDImage.exe ->not renamed

CDImage.cpl ->not renamed

This doesn't work. Instead, the files should be this:

CDImagex.cpi ->not renamed

CDImage.exe ->renamed to CDImageGUI.exe

CDImage.cpl ->not renamed

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn' work for me:

CDImagex.cpi ->not renamed

CDImage.exe ->renamed to CDImageGUI.exe

CDImage.cpl ->not renamed

As I told often: cpl looks for same named cpi, so

CDImagex.cpi ->renamed to CDImage.cpi
CDImage.exe ->renamed to CDImageGUI.exe
CDImage.cpl ->not renamed

seems the solution

Edited by murvun
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts too, Murvun.

@dziubek:

Check 60316a when it's out. I'm working around this issue. When the author updates his/her addon, it will still work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to release a new final this week when there are no issues with LegitCheckControl.dll and KB912945. Dziubek said all's fine with KB912945 but I'd prefer more confirmations.

The HFEXPERT change will not be implemented yet. It still remains to be seen that there are no nasty side effects so it will only exist in a test release for now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When using

HFSLIP_60310.CMD

HFSLIP_60314b.CMD

HFSLIP_60315c.CMD

I had no issues with KB912945

re building an iso w/ the latest test build (60316d).

'giving you results soon

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If KB912945 got installed properly using HFSLIP_60315c.CMD then you don't need to test HFSLIP_60316d.CMD for that. The LegitCheckControl fix was updated again, though, so you can test it for that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tomcat: I am having an issue with the 'expert' version of HFSLIP. Every time I run it i get this:

The entry "ntkrnlmp.exe" in the [sourceDisksFiles]section of the INF file is corrupt or missing

Whereas running the same config with the 'normal' HFSLIP runs flawlessly. I have HFCLEANUP and HFEXPERT/WIN folders.

This is another on-my-lunch input...so more diagnosing will be done later. Reports are attached.

reports.zip

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a weird message. Do you get that during Windows installation?

I wonder what INF file is being referred to...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.