VersionNT64 Condition on Vista 32 bit...???
I'm once again totally stumped with this one.
We have some files with the same name but dependent on 64 bit or not. So, under our Feature we have conditions (VersionNT64) and NOT (VersionNT64). The files under these conditions that do not share common names install properly based on the target architecture (myfile.dll and myfile_x64.dll for example). Those that do share common names (Company.AutoDAC.Interop.dll for example (on is 32 bit component, the other 64 bit)) seem to always be getting the file under the (VersionNT64) condition even though the OS is Vista 32 bit.
And, to confuse matters more, this appears to be the only platform where this problem occurs.
Does anyone know where I can even begin to look. I should add that all 64 bit files are marked 64-bit components on their details page. Currently this is also being applied as a patch, but again, works under all other OS/architecture combinations -- so I'm told.
I am totally baffled with this one (as is usually the case).
Please help!!
We have some files with the same name but dependent on 64 bit or not. So, under our Feature we have conditions (VersionNT64) and NOT (VersionNT64). The files under these conditions that do not share common names install properly based on the target architecture (myfile.dll and myfile_x64.dll for example). Those that do share common names (Company.AutoDAC.Interop.dll for example (on is 32 bit component, the other 64 bit)) seem to always be getting the file under the (VersionNT64) condition even though the OS is Vista 32 bit.
And, to confuse matters more, this appears to be the only platform where this problem occurs.
Does anyone know where I can even begin to look. I should add that all 64 bit files are marked 64-bit components on their details page. Currently this is also being applied as a patch, but again, works under all other OS/architecture combinations -- so I'm told.
I am totally baffled with this one (as is usually the case).
Please help!!
0 Comments
[ + ] Show comments
Answers (5)
Please log in to answer
Posted by:
Superfreak3
13 years ago
It appears as though its the naming. If we change the name of the 64 bit files to include something like _x64 in the name all is placed as desired.
So it appears that if you two files named the same to be installed conditionally to the same location, the condition is either ignored or not resolved properly.
I would think that would be a Windows Installer bug??
The files also have the same version as well, but I don't know why that would be coming into play in our scenario.
We haven't tried leaving the files with the same name and maybe install the 64 bit files to an x64 folder.
So it appears that if you two files named the same to be installed conditionally to the same location, the condition is either ignored or not resolved properly.
I would think that would be a Windows Installer bug??
The files also have the same version as well, but I don't know why that would be coming into play in our scenario.
We haven't tried leaving the files with the same name and maybe install the 64 bit files to an x64 folder.
Posted by:
anonymous_9363
13 years ago
Don't think so. I'm pretty sure I've built packages with conditioned components which contained identically-named files.
You could build a pretty simple package with, say, a couple of text files conatined within conditioned components to test the theory.
You could build a pretty simple package with, say, a couple of text files conatined within conditioned components to test the theory.
Posted by:
Superfreak3
13 years ago
If the files are named the same, we don't get what we want. If we rename the problematic files, we get what we want. I don't know what else it could be.
We're trying to install the 64 bit files to a SomeFolder_x64 folder to see if that remedies the problem.
I agree though, I would think it should work no matter what the files are named. If the distinct destinations don't help, I guess I'll turn to logging the install to see what's wrong.
We're trying to install the 64 bit files to a SomeFolder_x64 folder to see if that remedies the problem.
I agree though, I would think it should work no matter what the files are named. If the distinct destinations don't help, I guess I'll turn to logging the install to see what's wrong.
Posted by:
Superfreak3
13 years ago
Installing the same-named 64-bit file to an alternate location worked for us.
Posted by:
TrailVersion
13 years ago
Hi Superfreak3
The both conditions are straight opposite.When one is true,second one will be false definitly.So only one Componet and its files will get installed.
The both conditions are straight opposite.When one is true,second one will be false definitly.So only one Componet and its files will get installed.
Rating comments in this legacy AppDeploy message board thread won't reorder them,so that the conversation will remain readable.