| All Forums |
Register |
Login |
Search |
Subscriptions |
My Profile |
Inbox |
| Tool Warehouse |
FAQs |
Resources |
Help |
Member List |
Address Book |
Logout |
|
|
unattended installaion
|
Logged in as: Guest |
| Users viewing this topic: none |
|
Login  |
|
|
 unattended installaion - Sep. 13, '06, 2:21:43 PM
|
|
|
xaviguz
Posts: 12
Joined: May 24, '05,
Status: offline
|
I need to have an unattended installation of the SUA from Windows Components.
I foud that we can use sysocmgr.exe to do this, does anyone have a sample on how to call this command and what parameters to use?
Thanks
Xavier
|
|
|
|
 RE: unattended installaion - Sep. 13, '06, 3:21:09 PM
|
|
|
xaviguz
Posts: 12
Joined: May 24, '05,
Status: offline
|
In addition to the previous question, I read on another topic that you said yes to the option of installing SUA (Windows component) into a different directory, is this possible?
If not, I assume we can install the utilities on a different folder right?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unattended installaion - Sep. 13, '06, 4:43:49 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3695
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
Short: No and no.
SUA is now part of the OS distribution. It has a specified home in
the directory tree. The utilities base directory is the same boat.
The installation of the utilities does not provide an option to
change the location. (I'm assuming your asking about Vista).
|
|
|
|
 RE: unattended installaion - Sep. 14, '06, 9:06:07 AM
|
|
|
xaviguz
Posts: 12
Joined: May 24, '05,
Status: offline
|
Thank you Rodney.
I'm asking about Vista and W2003 R2.
Since our application needs to be compatible with both, I will assume your answer will apply to them.
I will keep testing our application in order to report bugs with the subsystem..
One more thing, we compiled using SFU 3.5, do you think it will be better to compile on the new SUA?
Thanks
Xavier
|
|
|
|
|
RE: unattended installaion - Sep. 14, '06, 12:52:26 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3695
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
> One more thing, we compiled using SFU 3.5, do you think it will be better to compile on the new SUA?
If you will only be running on SUA (version 5.2 and 6.0) then it would be better to
compile on 5.2, in particular if you are using gcc. Binaries are forward
compatible so 3.5 will run on 5.2+, but not the other way around. I mention gcc
because the 5.2 gcc has an adjustment to not have the DEP problem. If you
compile with c89/cc and then link with gcc or c89/cc the DEP problem is
avoided with 3.5 binaries.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
|
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
Printable Version
