Comments for Johannes Passing's Blog

Comment on Mixing 32 and 64-bit components in a single MSI by Simon

Simon — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:51:27 +0000

Great article. I have another problem mixing 64 and 32-bit components in a single package. I need to use the PublishComponent table to publish the same file, which is actually platform-independent, twice. Once as 64-bit component, and once as 32-bit.
The problem is, this file is very big. To publish it twice I need to duplicate the component and the file. It makes MSI twice as big.

Do you have any idea, how to publish the same component as 32 and 64-bit without duplicating it?

Comment on Mixing 32 and 64-bit components in a single MSI by Rich

Rich — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:18:16 +0000

Thanks for this article. Very helpful.

Comment on Using Import Address Table hooking for testing by PrimaryRing

PrimaryRing — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:55:09 +0000

Johannes,

Thanks!
I am new to the IAT hooking world; and this is a fantastic writeup. Also, as a person who learns-by-example, *really* appreciate that you wove your text with sample code.

I have one request –
It’s a “general request”; not about this article – but for all writeups that include inline code. (And, this request for all authors of such material; not just you).

Here it is:
I would LOVE direct-links to the raw-source files (.cpp, .h) or – better – a zip or rar of an entire sample project. When I write something like this, I usually am cutting from a source file that already exists — not writing code ‘by hand’ in the article. So, if it already exists, I was thinking it might be reasonable to ask for a link (not too much extra trouble). Requesting a zipped sample app may be asking for too much.

Anyway, thanks again.
Awesome material here.

cheers
-j

Comment on Writing Data-Driven Custom Actions by Writing Data-Driven Custom Actions keynote link for different customs

Writing Data-Driven Custom Actions keynote link for different customs — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:03:15 +0000

[...] View original here: Writing Data-Driven Custom Actions [...]

Comment on Install MSI with log from shell context menu by More Context Menu Handlers for Everyday Use « JP’s Blog

More Context Menu Handlers for Everyday Use « JP’s Blog — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:21:13 +0000

[...] A while ago, I wrote about how to extend the context menu by new commands that allow MSI packages to be installed/uninstalled with logfiles being created. The registry entries I used were: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOTMsi.PackageshellLoggedInstall] @="&Logged Install" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOTMsi.PackageshellLoggedInstallcommand] @="msiexec.exe /l* "%1-install.log" /i "%1" %*" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOTMsi.PackageshellLoggedUninstall] @="L&ogged Uninstall" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOTMsi.PackageshellLoggedUninstallcommand] @="msiexec.exe /l* "%1-uninstall.log" /x "%1" %*" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOTMsi.Packageshellrunascommand] @="msiexec.exe /l* "%1.log" /i "%1" %*" [...]

Comment on On Setup Bootstrap Loaders by dB.

dB. — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:51:49 +0000

Check out http://dotnetinstaller.codeplex.com

Comment on cfix 1.4 released by Introducing cfix studio, the Visual Studio AddIn for C/C++ Unit Testing « JP’s Blog

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:32:31 +0000

[...] Other « cfix 1.4 released [...]

Comment on Launch elevated processes from the command line by Eduardo Beeche

Eduardo Beeche — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:15:59 +0000

Thank you very much for such a useful utility. Thanks also for releasing the source code.

Comment on Working Around TlbImp’s Cleverness by iLya Mukhanov

iLya Mukhanov — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:21:14 +0000

Thanks for your article. It helped me very much. I had just the same situation when mock/stub test classes couldn’t be used because of that tlbimp @#$%^&* intelligence

iLya [Elijah]

Comment on Where to place RemoveExistingProducts in a major MSI upgrade by elainejames

elainejames — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:12:25 +0000

Good one.. thnx.. :)

Comment on Authoring multi-language MSI packages by On Setup Bootstrap Loaders « JP’s Blog

On Setup Bootstrap Loaders « JP’s Blog — Sun, 24 May 2009 16:28:34 +0000

[...] 0 Comments Tags: bootstrapper, MSI, setup, Windows Installer, WiX Almost two years ago, I wrote about how to create multi-language MSI packages. Although using transforms to internationalize an MSI package is a viable solution, one drawback of [...]

Comment on Where to place RemoveExistingProducts in a major MSI upgrade by Tom

Tom — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:43:47 +0000

Thank you very much.

Comment on RCW Reference Counting Rules != COM Reference Counting Rules by Voli Dublino

Voli Dublino — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:06:39 +0000

Voli Dublino thinks you are right!

Comment on cfix 1.3.0 Released, Introducing WinUnit Compatibility by jpassing

jpassing — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:07:44 +0000

It depends on the command line you are using. Say the DLL is named foo.dll, then:

“cfix32 foo.dll” should yield:
cfix version 1.3.0.3340 (fre)
(C) 2008-2009 – Johannes Passing – http://www.cfix-testing.org/
The specified module could not be found.

…which is caused by the unsatisfied dependency.

If, however, you specify a wildcard or a directory, like “cfix32 *.dll” or “cfix32 .”, foo.dll will silently be skipped and the output may be empty. This behavior is correct — but indeed, it would be better if an appropriate error message would be output in this case, too.

If you have further questions, please drop me a mail: passing at users dot sourceforge dot net

Comment on cfix 1.3.0 Released, Introducing WinUnit Compatibility by kmmbvnr

kmmbvnr — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:03:17 +0000

I have a problem with cfix.

I have tests that statically linked with some DLL only present on Vista.

I thought if i run it on Windows XP, cfix tell me that some dll is missing. But when i run it – it just does not found any tests, and doesn’t report on any error.

The output is:

>> cfix version 1.3.0.3340 (fre)
>> (C) 2008-2009 – Johannes Passing – http://www.cfix-testing.org/
>> .

Thats all. Is it correct behaviour for cfix?

Comment on Launch elevated processes from the command line by jpassing

jpassing — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:33:12 +0000

Is it really the same account that you are using for both, runas and the UAC OTS dialog?

If you perform a regular logon (i.e. no runas but logoff and logon again) on your machine using your admin-domain account and then launch MMC — do you get a UAC consent dialog or an OTS prompt? If the latter is the case (i.e. you have to enter credentials), then the account probably has no local admin rights and the behavior regarding runas/elevate would make sense.

Comment on Launch elevated processes from the command line by Martin

Martin — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:51:58 +0000

I tried
runas /u:domain\account “elevate dsa.msc”
or
runas /u:domain\account “elevate /k \”title something\”"
but I always have to enter the credentials two times:
first for the runas (ok, only the password), then another time for the elevate cmd.
Somehow I expected after doing the runas it should be clear that elevate runs under the other account. Then Vista should only ask for approval.

Comment on Launch elevated processes from the command line by jpassing

jpassing — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:31:25 +0000

What does the command you are using look like? Assuming that the domain account you are using for admin work uses UAC in admin approval mode, I’d expect runas /u:domain\account “elevate xyz.msc” to work fine…

Comment on Launch elevated processes from the command line by Martin

Martin — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:47:20 +0000

Any chance to combine this with RunAs?

Here’s what I have in mind:
I have two accounts, one for normal office work, another one for domain admin work.
I log on to my workstation with the non-priviledged account and want be able to open admin tools with the other account.
But these tools (AD Users and Computers etc.) require elevation.

Up to now I found no way to combine Elevate and RunAs so that I have to provide credentials only one time.

Comment on Embracing WinUnit by cfix 1.3.0 Released, Introducing WinUnit Compatibility « JP’s Blog

cfix 1.3.0 Released, Introducing WinUnit Compatibility « JP’s Blog — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:52:51 +0000

[...] Other « Embracing WinUnit [...]