[align=left]We have a request from our customer to make msi packages BITS compliant. (Background Intelligent Transfer Service )
Do you have any idea how this can be done ?
[/align]
0 Comments   [ + ] Show Comments

Comments

Please log in to comment

Rating comments in this legacy AppDeploy message board thread won't reorder them,
so that the conversation will remain readable.

Answers

0
As far as I'm aware, there's no "on/off" feature for MSI to use BITS. It shouldn't have anything to do with the MSI actually. It comes down to your deployment tool and whether or not it uses BITS such as SMS and, I think, WSUS.
Answered 05/04/2009 by: jcarri06
Senior Purple Belt

Please log in to comment
0
It comes down to your deployment tool and whether or not it uses BITS such as SMS and, I think, WSUS.
Exactly right. A file is a file is a file. It's a bit like saying that your EXEs need to be BITS-compliant: utter nonsense.
Answered 05/04/2009 by: VBScab
Red Belt

Please log in to comment
0
Exactly right. A file is a file is a file. It's a bit like saying that your EXEs need to be BITS-compliant: utter nonsense.

Now the customer has told us that it should be a setting in the ipf or wse (wisescript wrapper) file that is disabling BITS. Is this in any way possible or is this nonsence to.
Answered 05/05/2009 by: ikke
Senior Purple Belt

Please log in to comment
0
Then; as it seems they "know" what they are talking about why not let them describe how to do it.
Answered 05/05/2009 by: AngelD
Red Belt

Please log in to comment
0
Is this in any way possibleHow about the radical approach?NET STOP "Background Intelligent Transfer Service"Perform installation, check for success, thenNET START "Background Intelligent Transfer Service" Actually, this is a bit glib. I NEVER use bare commands like this, nor do I rely on the ServiceControl table (using that table, how do I tell if it the service actually stopped/started?), preferring instead to use a home-grown script with full error-trapping but the above will do what you want.

Once you have that working, ask the customer if he even knows what BITS does. Quite why he should want MSIs to turn it off escapes me, since the service has no involvement whatsoever in the installation of MSIs. If their deployment mechanism uses it, surely it behoves THEIR people to create a process which disables it for deployment and then enables it afterwards! Is it me? Is it?
Answered 05/05/2009 by: VBScab
Red Belt

Please log in to comment
0
VBscab, Using the ServiceInstall table allows you to remove the need for a reboot when dumping a load of reg keys down to the box to create your service and if you want to ensure that your service starts then use the ServiceControl table, if either the servcie failed to install or failed to start I get an msi error message saying exactly that.

I am sure you know this already and use some mechanism for restarting the services service so that your service is visible but why not use the tables to do it, as they are there :)

If you wanted more control over the checking of if the service installed correctly then at this point call a vbscript to do a start or stop of the service and check its report error code however i would still use the install table to actually create the services in the first place.

P

PS, Just my view of course and I may of misread your post!
Answered 05/05/2009 by: Inabus
Second Degree Green Belt

Please log in to comment
0
Hi, Paul.

I was referring more to the ServiceControl table, where you can control services which your package doesn't install. An error message from the MSI may not be any use to me when controlling a service. For example, let's say I need to stop a service before installing my package. Using the table, my package has no way of knowing if the service stopped or not. If I use a CA to test that, I may as well have a CA which controls the entire process, true?
Answered 05/05/2009 by: VBScab
Red Belt

Please log in to comment
0
Ah see where your comming from now and I agree that you need a script to better control external services in-terms of stopping and starting. I would disagree that a 1 size fits all solution would be best for controlling all situations, specifially where i am installing and creating services myself via an MSI.

P
Answered 05/05/2009 by: Inabus
Second Degree Green Belt

Please log in to comment
0
Agreed. If my package is installing the service then I'm *reasonably* happy that ServiceControl will start it OK (if that's what I want).
Answered 05/05/2009 by: VBScab
Red Belt

Please log in to comment
Answer this question or Comment on this question for clarity