Re: P+D Wizard reports missing files

• From: Andy <andrewjellis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:22:01 -0700

"Jim Carlock" <anonymous@localhost> wrote in message
news:OduKX5iaGHA.4580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi Ralph,

"Ralph" <nt_consulting64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

1) Stop whinning about the P&D.

<g> Okay, time for the good guy bad guy newsgroup moderator
act.

Sometimes statements reveal things about your own conditions.
For instance, when George Bush mentions the word "terrorist", it
indicates that he himself knows something about terrorists that the
rest of the world doesn't know, including the terrorists themselves.
He works with terrorists?

His grandfather, Prescott Bush, worked with Adolph Hitler. And
perhaps it's a one upmanship game between George, Bill and
the dead Prescott Bush. "The first smeller is the guilty feller?"

So maybe you whine about things yourself? I don't know. But if
so, perhaps it helps to know that your statements reveal whining.
Sometimes statements by people reveal truths about their own
conditions. It's something that can be corrected and knowledge
plays a grande role in helping identify the problem.

Hope I offended noone (including George Bush, Bill Clinton
and especially the FBI agents that work for George, Bill and
Osama (see "Kevin Ives" and "Gail Spiro")).

2) However, selecting another tool will not help in this particular
case.

What's the point here? You didn't provide anything helpful on
enumeration number (2).

Writing ends up as a form of art. Communication as well. Some
knowledges help when writing about when to enumerate and to
write in paragraph clauses. Enumerations help when properly
applied. You failed to enumerate anything here and going through
the rest of the message confirms this. In other words, everything
you posted reads better as normal paragraph clauses rather than
an enumeration.

Enumeration number (2) represents a supposition on your part.
You effectively stated, take note of the "implied you"...

However, for you, selecting another tool will not help in this
particular case.

How could you really know that? The statement reads better
as a question.

3) The P&D is essentially two tools - one is a dependancy utility,
the other a packaging utility.

The Dependancy tool is informing you that your application is
"dependent" on using these files.

I say, "Okay!", to those declarations.

But they are "system" files (part of the VB/C++ runtime) and
shouldn't normally be included with a install package.

I disagree. Not ALL operating systems come with the runtime
packages, so instead I propose that the "updated runtimes" get
provided with the package (in other words, if you built the app
with SP5 runtime, include only the SP5 runtime rather than the
SP5 runtime on top of the VB6 runtime, but NOTE, be aware
that this might present an issue if the enduser has SP6 runtime
installed).

The dependancy checker also indicated other files that likely
shouldn't be included either.

Such as? Here you stated your opinion, the word "likely"
announces that this represents your opinion. Stick with the
facts.

4) The packaging tool couldn't include them because, you
have either hidden 'system' files or extensions, or you are
blocked by WPS. Depends on your Windows version.

Can you tell me what WPS provides, performs, involves? I'm
drawing a blank right at the moment, but perhaps you mean,
SFC (System File Checker, sfc.exe on Windows 2K and later)
or WFP (Windows File Protection, which keeps a list of items
windows protects from wrongful updates inside a file known
as sfcfiles.dll)?

NOTE: You might possibly communicating with a newby who
fails to know what SFC or WFP is. I failed to identify /your/
"WPS". The best I came up with involves:
:: Windows Power Service
:: WPS (Corel file [Windows Post Script?])

5) Correct versions of these files are already installed on the
target.

That enumeration brings up a very powerful word. I dislike
the word. I'm going to rewrite your statement with the "implied
assumption"...

"I a$$ume" correct files of these files are already installed
on the target.

That fails to offer anything useful to the op. Avoid "a$$uming"
things on the part of others. Either you know what's going on
or you don't. Do not "a$$ume" anything. Basically, avoid all
"implied a$$umtioms".

The proper time to "a$$ume" anything, involves explicitly
stating specific unknown conditions in order to present a
valid argument.

6) The simple expedient is to NOT include these files in
your package.

Huhh? <g>

7) If the target box does need them (highly unlikely) then
use the MS provided package for installing the VB runtime.

There's an "implied a$$umption" again. Even though you
specifically qualified the statemeny with an "If ...", you also
suggested (wrongly) by offering an opinion ("highly unlikely").
In effect, YOUR opinion ("highly unlikely") fails to validate
anything in the rest of the post. Avoid employing opinions
when trying to help others. Stick to the facts.

Good luck, Ralph. Forgive me for correcting your "opinions"
and your English rhetoric. This is NOT an attack on your
advice and is NOT an attack in any way, forms or means.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.

You are correct I was less than clear. And if you read my other post, a bit
off target as well, as I assumed the RA was included with any Windows
platform. (Exactly if it is or not is still in doubt.)

It does little to complain about a tool. I put such remarks right up there
with "VB Sucks! Now please explain why this doesn't work....".

Either figure out what it is doing or get another.

[And Kennedy's father was quite open in his admiration and support for
Adolph Hitler while the ambassador to England, and a major supporter of
Franco during the Spanish Civil War.
I have no idea what that is all about, but thought I would throw it in
anyway.]

In this case I doubted the tool itself would make any difference. I should
have said IMHO, and will certainly do so the next time. But until or unless
the OP responds with the 'fix' - my opinion stands.

It is was my belief at the time and still is (to some degree*), that the OP
will discovered that those files are already present on the target machine.
(*as I stated in another post - I'm less sure now than at 7am this morning
and would welcome additional information.)

The mystery is how the OP could have compiled an app that uses the RA
manager and then not be able to build a package. On further reflection,
IMHO, the OP may have a MFC/C++ component that he references, and it is that
component which has a dependency on RA.

-ralph

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: P+D Wizard reports missing files
    • From: Ralph

• References:
  • Re: P+D Wizard reports missing files
    • From: Ralph
  • Re: P+D Wizard reports missing files
    • From: Jim Carlock
  • Re: P+D Wizard reports missing files
    • From: Ralph

• Prev by Date: Leer registro de una aplicación determinada
• Next by Date: Re: How to jump to syntax error line
• Previous by thread: Re: P+D Wizard reports missing files
• Next by thread: Re: P+D Wizard reports missing files
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

• Windows
• Science
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint