Jump to content


This is a ready-only archive of the InstallSite Forum. You cannot post any new content here. / Dies ist ein Archiv des InstallSite Forums. Hier können keine neuen Beiträge veröffentlicht werden.
Photo

Question about creating an upgrade installer


2 replies to this topic

andychiles

andychiles
  • Full Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 29 April 2009 - 21:16

Hi,

I am so glad I have found this site, it seems full of very useful information! And I hope some of you out there might be able to help me with a problem I've got!

I'm working on an installer (using InstallShield 2008 Professional edition) that was initially created by someone who has now left the company I work for. And this is my first exposure to InstallShield, so I admit I am totally unfamiliar with it! I have been asked to create an upgrade installer that will upgrade existing installations or install the later version of the application. I believe this can be achieved using a Minor Upgrade. Unfortunately, though, I have not yet been able to get the upgrade installer to deliver new file(s) to systems that already have the original version of the product installed. I've also tried setting the REINSTALLMODE property to "amus", but still no luck.

I think the problem I have is that all the components in the project specify the files to be delivered to the target system using dynamic links. And - to my knowledge - there are no key files (or key paths) defined for these components (I think this is the default scenario?). I remember reading somewhere that new file(s) will only be updated on the target system if the key file for a component is updated - and that assumes that the key file is a versioned file.

Am I right in thinking this is the problem with the upgrade installer? And, if so, what would be the best way to correct the problem. I don't think there are any Portable Executable files in the majority of the components in this project, so I think(?) that the 'best practice' method of using dynamic linking won't work. I think I'm looking at redefining the components in the project to avoid using dynamic links, so that I can expilcitly specify the appropriate key files. What do you think?

All comments and thoughts appreciated. And - as I said before - I'm new to all this, so I apologise if I'm talking rubbish and/or getting confused!

Thanks,

Andy



KathyMorey

KathyMorey
  • Full Members
  • 111 posts

Posted 30 April 2009 - 15:08

I can think of a couple points you might want to research or consider.

If the dynamic linking was done on a folder level, that is, none of the dynamic links include subdirectories, upgrading can work under certain conditions. You might want to check your release settings to see if you have pointed to the previous package for validation. Doing so causes the build of the upgrade package to use the same component GUIDS for files as in the old build.

Second, if you can't get a minor upgrade to work, you might want to consider doing a major upgrade instead, with the RemoveExistingProducts action before InstallInitialize. All the old files will get removed, so the new files will be put in place.

The last point to consider is whether the unversioned files on the target systems have a modifed date equal to the creation date. If they don't, for whatever reason, Windows Installer will consider them customer data and will not update them or remove them.


Kathy Morey
Synergy Software Engineer
ProfitStars, a Jack Henry Company
kmorey@profitstars.com

andychiles

andychiles
  • Full Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 30 May 2009 - 11:32


Hi Kathy,

Apologies for the late reply - I've been away on holiday!

And thanks for the suggestions. I now think that a major upgrade might well now be the way forward. Unfortunately, this project doesn't seem to have been designed with upgrades in mind, in that application files, config files and data (log) files are all under the same folder - so I think some kind of export (and subsequent import) of essential config data before (and after) the major upgrade could well be required.

Anyway, thanks again, and I'll get back to looking into this!

Cheers,

Andy