[izpack-users] <executable ...> doesn't work

[Klaus Bartz]

Hi Fabrice,
the mail should be a mild attempt to declare what has happen
in last mails to one person.
Yes, in the docu there was declared a wrong default for
stage of tag <executable>. It was/is "never", declared was
"postinstall". The correction I have made for the trunk.
I assume, that a merge will be performed at release of 3.9.1.

Am 27.10.2006, 22:00 Uhr, schrieb miraodb <miraodb at hotmail.com>:

> Hi Klaus,
>
>> Hi Hans-Georg,
>> I know that there was (is) a bug related to <executable> tag.
>> At the time you have written the problems I have made
>> a test project and tested and debugged it. Additional I have
>> made an investigation in the svn to see at what time the
>> change of the default was.
>> The bug is in the docu because the behavior of IzPack
>> (default "never") has never changed.
>> I agree with you that this have to be fixed.
>> I have done it at 2006.10.20.
>
> I'm getting lost in this conversation... quite hard to follow :-)
> Did i miss something in the docu for the executable ? I believe that  
> never has always been the default stage , no ?
> If i'm wrong, i apologize for users and developers and i shall fix that  
> right away.
>
>> Your mails have me triggert to look around (before I have
>> settled to IzPack I have tested more than one other installer,
>> but this are some years ago) to other installer.
>> It seems so that you have tested install4j.
>> In opposite to IzPack install4j has a nice GUI. But I see
>> only the way via custom code to make the same as IzPacks
>> <execute> tag.
>> Again, how can I execute programms OS dependant in install4j?
>
> May i add my opinion ?
> When i started looking for installers, i search everywhere. I mean it !!  
> I looked at every single available installer on earth :-)
> Commercials, Open Source, Freeware, Software... Whatever ! My company  
> gave me 2 weeks just to find which one to choose because they know that  
> a good installer can make the difference in time saving, support and  
> efficiency !
> Now, not only i chose IzPack but i'm part of this great community !  
> That's because i believe that IzPack offers much more than many of other  
> installers and more importantly it's higly custumizable and well  
> supported by people like you and uncountable others !
>
> Also as far as the GUI is concerned, we have a devoted developer who's  
> working on it hardly ! and i tried the first versions which were quite  
> amazing already. I assume that in a close future we will have it. (Even  
> though i prefer the good old fashion xml based programming)
>

I know, that a GUI is just in developing. I assume, that I will use also
the xml interface after release of it. I have a installation with some
packages which contains more than hundred filesets. It is not possible to
create and maintain it with copy and paste.
But to learn to handle a new software will be faster with a GUI, I think.

I think we should look around from time to time. May be to see good new
ideas. And it is good to see that other also cooks with water; often our
water is hotter :-)
On the other hand; for some special things I use other installer.
It is the point with automatic registration of com dlls etc.
You know, that MS advise now not to use the automatic registration with
regsvr32.exe because you get a big problem if you remove the dll before
you unregister. The silver bullet is to set the entries directly into
registry and store the settings in the uninstaller data file. How to get
the data? Scan the dll. That's the problem where IzPack cannot help and
where I have no lust (or I am not clever enough) to write this scanner in
java (it have to be a monitor which intersects between program and  
registry).
OK, I zone out, but for this I use a tool which creates MSI. That  
installation
has only about 50 files, there is cut and paste possible.

Cheers

Klaus


> So long !
>
> Fab
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1392 (20060202) Information __________
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde vom NOD32 Antivirus System geprüft
> http://www.nod32.com
>



-- 
Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/