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

PackageForTheWeb post build process


2 replies to this topic

jgoeke

jgoeke
  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 08 June 2005 - 20:25

Now that IS has removed PackageForTheWeb as a separate product, how does one create a package for the web after a setup has already been built. We cannot use the built in PackageForTheWeb via the release wizard, for we only want one official build for our product and setup.

Our product setup will be distributed on a DVD or CD as normal. We want to take this exact same set of bits and bundle it all up in a package for the web or even just a single exe. We would like to use the InstallShield tools. Is this at all possible now the IS had removed this product?

Thanks in advance!

---JHG


Stefan Krueger

Stefan Krueger

    InstallSite.org

  • Administrators
  • 13,269 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 15:58

First off, you can still use PFTW. It's no longer supported, but that doesn't mean you can't use it.

Another option would be to use the self extracting option in InstallShield. For your CD, extract the package and place the extracted contents on your CD.

Third option would be to put the self extracting package on your CD.

Fourth option would be a third party packager.

jgoeke

jgoeke
  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 08 July 2005 - 18:36

Thanks for the reply! I like your creativity on this matter, but the solutions are at best a work around.
1) Using an unsupported product is far from ideal. That and there is absolutely no existence of this product on the IS website, so finding it was a huge time waster.
2) Building the exe first and then extracting them would be difficult in not possible for an automated build process.
3) We have requirements that prohibit use from putting only the exe on the CD. If this was not the case we wouldn't even be having this chat :-)
4) Duh ;-)

I have seen a trend from IS over the years, in that it appears they do a poor job of designing there products and features to support automated build environments. Alas, another example.

With this we will most likely use option 1.