I know the feeling. I have it baked into my build automation to run a unit
test that compares the available files to an administrative install. If any
files are new in the build area but missing in the installer, a build error is
thrown. From there we find out who put the files there and make them answer
if it's a valid file to be deployed or not. Either the file gets yanked from
the build output or it gets added to the installer and then a rebuild is
performed. It was painful at first performing this reconciliation but now
developers are educated enough to know to request files be added to the install.
The last time I used dynamic file linking was for a `fake msi` that acted as
a bootstrapper. One of the things the bootstrapper did was a MSOffice LSI
style caching which used features/components/files to install the package
source but not register it as a real installed product. Some of the packages
that were redist were 3rd party uncompressed installs so dynamic linking helped
there.
Brian Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would say that dynamically linking files can be an issue but there are
some products out there that need to do this. The biggest thing I can see is
not what files should be included. In our product deployment cycles we would
run binary delta compares to ensure release integrity, know exactly what got
changed from development and to make sure that nothing like " weed.gif" was
going out the door (that was actually caught once!).
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
and lay it on us.-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
WiX-users mailing list
WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
