My Patch log is full of the following:
"Patch API could not create a small patch; using whole upgraded file."
It does this for every file it comes across that has not changed between versions, and consequently, the size of the resulting patch exe is *massive*.
What could I be doing wrong?
TIA
Andrew Gleadall
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.
Patch includes whole file if file has not changed!
Started by
AndrewGleadall
, May 15 2002 16:31
5 replies to this topic
Johannes John
-
- Full Members
- 223 posts
Posted 16 May 2002 - 16:29
Hello Andrew,
one of my several problems with the patch was, that two files with long filenames, which differred only after the 8th character, had different short filenames.
E.g. xxx~1 and xxx~2.
When updating ( deleting and new copying ) the files in a different sequence, the files got different short filenames. File one got xxx~2.
Therefore the patch registrated a difference and marked these two files as different.
Perhaps this helps.
Johannes
one of my several problems with the patch was, that two files with long filenames, which differred only after the 8th character, had different short filenames.
E.g. xxx~1 and xxx~2.
When updating ( deleting and new copying ) the files in a different sequence, the files got different short filenames. File one got xxx~2.
Therefore the patch registrated a difference and marked these two files as different.
Perhaps this helps.
Johannes
AndrewGleadall
-
- Members
- 3 posts
Posted 17 May 2002 - 13:12
Hi Johannes,
It seems to happen to every file that has not changed, regardless of filename size.
Thanks anyway!
Andrew Gleadall
It seems to happen to every file that has not changed, regardless of filename size.
Thanks anyway!
Andrew Gleadall
Johannes John
-
- Full Members
- 223 posts
Posted 17 May 2002 - 14:34
Hello Andrew,
do these files have different file keys?
Have a look with Orca into your two msifiles -> File Tabel
If they do so ( allways if loaded dynamically ), give your second project in the release section a file in "Previous Package" and the files will get the same file keys.
( I'm using 1.52 )
Perhaps it helps!
Johannes
do these files have different file keys?
Have a look with Orca into your two msifiles -> File Tabel
If they do so ( allways if loaded dynamically ), give your second project in the release section a file in "Previous Package" and the files will get the same file keys.
( I'm using 1.52 )
Perhaps it helps!
Johannes
AdamBell
-
- Members
- 21 posts
Posted 30 May 2002 - 09:28
I have done a few patches under MSI 1.1 and have found a few things that confirm what your saying.
Basically when the file tables are compared any row that has a different primary key in the file column, is treated as a different file. I believe the sequence needs to be the same too!
The way I have worked around this in the past is to ensure that the second MSI (the updated one) is ALWAYS based on the original.
I've only ever seen it use the whole file too, but at least it was only my updated ones and not the whole file table
I also learnt pretty quickly that if your updating files under 1.1 you have to use the original cabinet otherwise it can cause probles. I haven't tested this with 2.0 yet though!
I gave patching away in 1.1 and resorted to using the upgrade table - worked much nicer
Cheers
Adam
Basically when the file tables are compared any row that has a different primary key in the file column, is treated as a different file. I believe the sequence needs to be the same too!
The way I have worked around this in the past is to ensure that the second MSI (the updated one) is ALWAYS based on the original.
I've only ever seen it use the whole file too, but at least it was only my updated ones and not the whole file table
I also learnt pretty quickly that if your updating files under 1.1 you have to use the original cabinet otherwise it can cause probles. I haven't tested this with 2.0 yet though!
I gave patching away in 1.1 and resorted to using the upgrade table - worked much nicer
Cheers
Adam
AndrewGleadall
-
- Members
- 3 posts
Posted 13 June 2002 - 15:17
Johannes/Adam,
Thanks to you both -- The file keys were different, I now ensure that I use the keys from the previous package when making a build, and I get lovely small patches.
Cheers,
Andrew Gleadall
Thanks to you both -- The file keys were different, I now ensure that I use the keys from the previous package when making a build, and I get lovely small patches.
Cheers,
Andrew Gleadall