Closed Bug 26495 Opened 25 years ago Closed 24 years ago

addFile: Binary cannot be launched after installing to Win 98/95

Categories

(Core Graveyard :: Installer: XPInstall Engine, defect, P3)

x86
Windows 98

Tracking

(Not tracked)

VERIFIED INVALID

People

(Reporter: jimmykenlee, Assigned: cathleennscp)

Details

(Keywords: platform-parity)

Build: 2000-02-03-10-M14(WIN)

1. From http://jimbob/trigger2.html, click drop-down menu and choose 
   f_addwinpatch_exe and click Trigger case button

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// f_addwinpatch_exe.js
// 
// Functional test
// 	• Adds a component to set up Patch() from f_winpatch_exe.jar
//
// ~ XPInstall QA
//   July 2, 1999
//
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

var regName = "f_winpatch_exe";
var jarSrc = "clock.exe";
var vi = "1.0.1.10";

Install.StartInstall("Functional: f_addwinpatch_exe", "f_winpatch_exe", vi, 0);
f = Install.GetFolder("Program", "f_winpatch_exe");
Install.AddSubcomponent(regName, vi, jarSrc, f, jarSrc, true);

if (0 == Install.GetLastError())
	Install.FinalizeInstall();
else
	Install.AbortInstall();

RESULT:
File is installed.  Install.log looks accurate.  Launching executable does 
nothing.  It does work fine on Windows NT.

EXPECTED RESULT:
Launching executable is possible.

NOTE:
This particular test case is a setup for patching.  Patching appears to work, 
but I can only be sure if I can launch the executable before and after patching.
Target Milestone: M14
Keywords: pp
Summary: [PP]addFile: Binary cannot be launched after installing to Win 98/95 → addFile: Binary cannot be launched after installing to Win 98/95
This sounds serious. Have you tried this with other executable files? do we 
know for sure clock.exe runs on Win98 if you just copy the file manually? Is 
there another file we could pick that would give more diagnostics? Or is known 
to work on Win98 like notepad?  Did you do a binary compare of the 
downloaded clock.exe with the original? Or even a eyeball check of the 
filesize?

You said patching this file "worked" on Win98 -- what does that mean? Did you 
do a file size and binary compare before and after? Did the file actually 
change? If it did then it must have matched the checksum both before and after 
the patch (assuming that part's not broken -- you have tests for that, right?) 
which means it really must have installed OK.  If it were corrupt I would 
expect you to get errors from the OS, the fact that it appears to simply do 
nothing means it's probably still a valid .exe file (i.e. installed OK) but 
isn't talking to Win98 OK.  Does this file have dependencies that happen to be 
satisfied on your WinNT system?
If this is true it is also potentially a beta stopper since it prevents add-on 
installs of wrapped natives. We have needed that feature for COmmunicator 
installs in the past.
I'm investigating.  So far copying is reproducing the problem.  I don't recall 
this problem before.  Stay tuned for more to come.
I'm trying to get a build going on my machine.  I'll also check if this problem 
still exists.  :-)
Mark this one Invalid.

Good comments Dan.  There is no problem.  I found a couple of new binaries that 
work on both NT and 98.  After running the "new" tests, everything behaves as 
expected on both NT and 98.  The "old" binaries that I had previously used are 
not compatible on both OS.
oops, forgot to mark this one INVALID.  :-)
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Marking Verified.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.