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.

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. :-)

Marking Verified.