Re: [Python-Dev] VC 7.1 maintenance?
"Tim Peters" <tim.one@comcast.net> writes:
Probably I'm not smart enough to understand (or even maintain) Martin's MSI code, but I guess Martin will be smart enough to understand a little Pascal.
I was asking because I'm not sure if there will be problems with Windows file system protection with non-MSI installers. Thomas
Thomas Heller wrote:
I was asking because I'm not sure if there will be problems with Windows file system protection with non-MSI installers.
There is nothing inherent in Windows Installer that competing technology couldn't provide. Microsoft has documented the procedures for manipulating protected files, so competing installer can integrate the necessary changes. Whether Inno Setup supports protected files, I don't know. Nor do I know whether Inno Setup properly deals with file versions for files that are not protected, or with any other of the Windows mechanisms necessary for software installation. Regards, Martin
[Thomas Heller]
I was asking because I'm not sure if there will be problems with Windows file system protection with non-MSI installers.
I doubt it, and Python doesn't try to replace system files anyway. The Zope 2.7, Z4I and ZRS Windows installers are all written with InnoSetup, and nobody has reported problems with them; two of those include their own Python and win32all installations; I've tried all those myself on Win98SE, Win2K, and WinXP Pro. It's possible (don't know) that InnoSetup doesn't play "correctly" with XP system restore points. MSI does. I've found restore points to be an essentially useless feature, so I don't really care about that. If it were up to me (and it's certainly not!), I'd go with MSI at this point. I don't know how to drive that either, and am an advanced-level InnoSetup hacker, so that's not a self-serving position <wink>. The thing is that MSI is certain to play well with all Windows gimmicks (like Group Policy, install-on-demand, restore points, whatever new nightmares XP SP2 unleashes, etc), and free tools to make it palatable are appearing. For example, I've been told (but don't know) that this one is worth its weight in electrons: http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~dbareis/makemsi.htm
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Tim Peters wrote: [...]
Why do you find system restore points useless? Aren't they convenient, when they work? (as long as you regard it as a convenience, not a proper backup) +1 on making multi-machine installation easier John
[John J Lee]
Why do you find system restore points useless?
Tautologically, because I have yet to see a case where they were of real use.
Aren't they convenient, when they work?
If they worked, I suppose they could be.
(as long as you regard it as a convenience, not a proper backup)
GoBack is useful and convenient, because it can undo all changes on disk. In that respect, it's as good as (but much faster and easier than) a full disaster-recovery restoration. System Restore undoes a vague subset of changes. If, e.g., a rogue installation damages data files, System Restore undoes parts of the installation, but leaves the data files damaged. It's good that System Restore (and other gimmicks) protect OS-critical executables and the registry, and that's better than nothing -- especially if all you run is the OS <wink>.
participants (4)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
John J Lee -
Thomas Heller -
Tim Peters