gmane.comp.package-management.wpkg.user

Re: Google Drive deploy - possible?

Barry Ralphs — 2013-01-10T18:53:23

I think you might be right, the MSI is out of date.
I downloaded it & installed it on another workstation and it was v1.3, 
but my workstation was already at v1.6.
I was using the v1.6 in my check condition and that's way it was 
failing, so this should work now:

<package id="GoogleDrive" name="Google Drive" revision="1" priority="1">
     <check type="uninstall" condition="versiongreaterorequal" 
path="Google Drive" value="1.3.3209.2688"/>
     <install cmd='msiexec /qn /l* "C:\TMaLog\GoogleDrive.log" /i 
"%SOFTWARE%\GoogleDrive\gsync_enterprise.msi"' />
     <upgrade cmd='msiexec /qn /l* "C:\TMaLog\GoogleDrive.log" /i 
"%SOFTWARE%\GoogleDrive\gsync_enterprise.msi"' />
</package>

Then it must auto-update to v1.6 later.

Barry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/

Re: Google Drive deploy - possible?

Barry Ralphs — 2013-01-10T17:37:27

On 1/10/2013 3:00 AM, wpkg-users-request< at >lists.wpkg.org wrote:
Why do you think it's out of date? That's what I've downloaded & I get 
version 1.6.3837.2778.
The problem I have is it always says "failed check after installation", 
even when the installation completed succefully.
I've tried both the file & uninstall check conditions, with no luck. So 
I to would like to know if anyone has been able to deploy G-Drive...?

thx,
Barry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/

Re: GPO deployment WPKGClient

2013-01-10T11:18:15

 

Reponse for helping others : 

Click Start, Run and type:

 regsvr32
scrrun.dll

 Press Enter. 

And reboot, all should be good. Main problem
appears when desinstalling software (I don't know exactly which one)
causing Windows Script Host to fail execute. 

error 8007007e in log.


client on my AD Domain. This domain is run by samba4, I don't know if
there is trouble to do so. 
http://wpkg.org/WPKG_Client#Group_Policy_WPKG_mix [3] I don't work and
trow an error wich says : 
(null) : Le module Spécifié n'existe pas (specified module don't exist)

to resolv this, and lead me to the good way ? 
\domain.tldwpkg [5] share. Hosts are push by the python script from AD.

\serv.domain.tldwpkgwpkg.js /install:gplwpkgclient 
same error without a batch like in the wiki 



the SOFTWARE parameter for paths --> 
value="\serv.domain.tldwpkgprog" /> 
condition="exists" path="WPKG" /> 
condition="versionequalto" path="%PROGRAMFILES%wpkgwpkginst.exe"
value="1.0.0.18" /> 
Client 1.3.14-x32.msi" SETTINGSFILE="%PKG_PATH%set

GPO deployment WPKGClient

Renaud ROLLES — 2013-01-09T17:30:25

Hello,

 

Im a new user of WPKG, and I have trouble to deploy client on my AD Domain.
This domain is run by samba4, I dont know if there is trouble to do so.

When I try to deploy with http://wpkg.org/WPKG_Client#Group_Policy_WPKG_mix
I dont work and trow an error wich says :

                 <file:///\\domain.tld\wpkg\wpkg.js>
\\domain.tld\wpkg\wpkg.js (2318,3) (null) : Le module Spécifié nexiste pas
(specified module dont exist)

 

And it fails.

What Im I doing wrong ? Did someone as a clue to resolv this, and lead me
to the good way ? 

 

Users can access the \\domain.tld\wpkg <file:///\\domain.tld\wpkg>  share.
Hosts are push by the python script from AD.

The batch file : 

< at >ECHO OFF

cscript \\serv.domain.tld\wpkg\wpkg.js /install:gplwpkgclient

 

*** It give the same error without a batch like in the wiki 

 

The package file:

<package

                id="gplwpkgclient"

                name="WPKG Client 1.3.14"

                revision="2011.04.20.00"

                reboot="

Google Drive deploy - possible?

Chris Mortimer — 2013-01-09T13:00:21

Hello,

Has anyone managed to deploy G/Drive without having a Google Apps 
subscription?

I found http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2490101 
which points to an out of date msi, 
https://dl.google.com/drive/gsync_enterprise.msi.

Am I missing something here, can G/Drive be deployed or is it not aimed 
at that type of market?

Thanks

Chris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/

Re: Checking for Adobe Flash Player ActiveX and Plugin (check results)

Christian — 2013-01-06T14:46:29

Dear Ronny,

Am 05.01.2013 23:30, schrieb Ronny:

I didn't know that there are all-in-one runtimes. I think that's a good
idea. Maybe I'll try them one time.

Chris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/

Re: Checking for Adobe Flash Player ActiveX and Plugin (check results)

Christian — 2013-01-06T14:18:41

Dear Stefan,

Am 05.01.2013 23:54, schrieb Stefan Pendl:

Okay, then it's clear. I didn't know that.


Nice tool. I think I'll install that too.


Chris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/

Re: Checking for Adobe Flash Player ActiveX and Plugin (check results)

Stefan Pendl — 2013-01-05T22:54:23

Am 05.01.2013 23:30, schrieb Ronny:

The check results in the wpkg.xml file are only used for the /query 
option to be able to create a report of the current state.

This is mainly used by 
http://www.gig-mbh.de/edv/software/wpkgtools/wpkg-create-report-english.htm 
to generate a HTML or Excel report from copies of wpkg.xml files on a 
server.

Just ignore them, since the checks will be executed during validation of 
the installation anyways.

--
Stefan P.

Top-posting:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/

Re: Checking for Adobe Flash Player ActiveX and Plugin (check results)

Ronny — 2013-01-05T22:30:24

There are two different installers. One is for Internet Explorer (the 
Active X version) and one is for all other Browsers (the Plugin). So if 
you just installed one of them, you could only check of that one. I 
install All-in-One-Runtimes to get Flash,Shockwave,Java,Net Framework, 
DirectX, J#, C++ and some other stuff and just add the checks for the 
packages that are mentioned in the changelog whenever i update the 
All-in-One-Runtimes... http://www.sereby.org/site/changelog so the last 
changes for v2.0.2 were that the Flash Player was updated to 
v11.5.502.135 and Java to 7.0 update 10. If that matches, everything is 
fine.

Olé Ronny

Am 05.01.2013 21:29, schrieb Christian:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/

Checking for Adobe Flash Player ActiveX and Plugin(check results)

Christian — 2013-01-05T20:29:33

Dear All,

I've installed and uninstalled Flash by adding / removing the profile to 
/ from the host.

Now there's a rather strange check result:

<check result="true" value="%PKG_VERSION%" path="Adobe Flash Player .+ 
Plugin.*" condition="versiongreaterorequal" type="uninstall"/>

<check result="false" value="%PKG_VERSION%" path="Adobe Flash Player .+ 
ActiveX.*" condition="versiongreaterorequal" type="uninstall"/> 
</checkResults>

The tests were:

<check type="uninstall" condition="versiongreaterorequal" path="Adobe 
Flash Player .+ ActiveX.*" value="%PKG_VERSION%" />

<check type="uninstall" condition="versiongreaterorequal" path="Adobe 
Flash Player .+ Plugin.*" value="%PKG_VERSION%" />

Both registry keys don't exist now.

Why is one of the results true, the other one false?

When I add the profile to the host again the ActiveX and the Plugin 
Version is reinstalled. I thought the check is skipped, if there's a 
positive result in wpkg.xml. Why is the Plugin installed?

Thank you in advance.

Ch

Re: Google Drive fails check after install

Barry Ralphs — 2013-01-05T01:01:10

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/
_______________________________________________
wpkg-users mailing list
wpkg-users< at >lists.wpkg.org
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users

Re: First test with architecture dependencies...

Stefan Pendl — 2013-01-04T17:25:07

Am 04.01.2013 18:16, schrieb Marco Gaiarin:

Get rid of the name attribute, since it is a match-all pattern and 
therefore not needed at all.

 From personal experience the name attribute is deprecated and 
superseded by the extended host matching attributes.


--
Stefan P.

Top-posting:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/

Re: First test with architecture dependencies...

Stefan Pendl — 2013-01-04T17:20:00

Am 04.01.2013 18:06, schrieb Marco Gaiarin:

The profile ID must be unique, so you can't use the same ID for multiple 
profiles.

Didn't you mean "Win7 x64" instead of "Win7 x86"?

I would setup one "default" profile and have the packages and 
dependencies be filtered by architecture, which is working for me at 
least for the packages, never had to use that for dependencies.


     <profile id="default" >
         <depends profile-id="base"                 architecture="x86"/>
         <package package-id="xptweaks-disable-csc" architecture="x86"/>

         <package package-id="wpkg-gp"          architecture="x64"/>
         <package package-id="wpkg-gp-settings" architecture="x64"/>
     </profile>



--
Stefan P.

Top-posting:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> h

Re: First test with architecture dependencies...

Marco Gaiarin — 2013-01-04T17:16:48


OK, i've done a:

<host architecture="x86" name=".+" profile-id="default" />
<host architecture="x64" name=".+" profile-id="default64" />

and this way seems to work.

Sorrty RTFM, i supposed i can use architecture match on 'profile' node,
but it is not the case. ;-)

http://wpkg.org/Extended_host_attribute_matching

First test with architecture dependencies...

Marco Gaiarin — 2013-01-04T17:06:48

I'm starting to move out of XPsp3 32 bit, moving also to WPKG-GP.

Anyway, i've setup a test recipe (for WPKG-GP, of course) and added to
profiles.xml:

    <profile id="default" architecture="x86" >
        <depends profile-id="base" />
        <package package-id="xptweaks-disable-csc" />
    </profile>

    <profile id="default" architecture="x64" >
        <package package-id="wpkg-gp" />
        <package package-id="wpkg-gp-settings" />
    </profile>

If i start WPKG on the win7 x86 box, in the log i can see that wpkg
correctly idetify the os as 'x64', apply profile 'default' but start to
install packages on 'base' profile plus 'xptweaks-disable-csc'
packages.


What i'm missing? Thanks.

Re: [Bug 278] Wrong host match

Helmut Hullen — 2012-12-15T08:58:00

Hallo, Stefan,

Du meintest am 15.12.12:






Max. 3 digits is one problem. The (for IP addresses) allowed range is  
the other problem.

Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/

Re: [Bug 278] Wrong host match

Stefan Pendl — 2012-12-15T08:25:21

Am 14.12.2012 18:54, schrieb Helmut Hullen:

The pattern translated into human language:

Start - one digit - zero or more digits - one dot - one digit - zero or 
more digits - one dot - one digit - zero or more digits - end

Sure there will be a more sophisticated check needed to allow a maximum 
of three digits per field.

I have reported this very problem in a previous version, which was 
corrected, but it seems that this change has been reverted.
I haven't reported it through the bug tracker, but through the mailing 
list, so it will be hard to find.


--
Stefan P.

Top-posting:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/

Re: Google Drive fails check after install

Barry Ralphs — 2012-12-15T00:13:30

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/
_______________________________________________
wpkg-users mailing list
wpkg-users< at >lists.wpkg.org
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users

Re: Google Drive fails check after install

Andrew Struiksma — 2012-12-14T21:03:41

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Barry Ralphs
<barry.ralphs< at >tippingmar.com>wrote:

Try changing your check to this:

   <check
    type="uninstall"
    condition="versiongreaterorequal"
    path="Google Drive"
    value="1.6.3837.2778"
  />

Andrew
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/
_______________________________________________
wpkg-users mailing list
wpkg-users< at >lists.wpkg.org
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users

Google Drive fails check after install

Barry Ralphs — 2012-12-14T19:31:45

I'm trying to push out the Google Drive Sync client to our workstations.
This is the package I'm using:

<package id="GoogleDrive" name="Google Drive" revision="1" priority="1">
     <check type="file" condition="versiongreaterorequal" 
path="%ProgramFiles(x86)%\Google\Drive\googledrivesync.exe" 
value="1.6.3837.2778" />
     <install cmd='msiexec /qn /l* "C:\TMaLog\GoogleDrive.log" /i 
"%SOFTWARE%\GoogleDrive\gsync_enterprise.msi"' />
</package>

For the check I've tried both "uninstall" & "file".
The software seams to install just fine. In the event viewer it says the 
Windows Installer completed successfully with 0 errors, but then on the 
next line it says failed check after installation. The .log file from 
msiexec also says it was successfully, but when I log into the 
workstation the msiexec process is still running, but 0% activity.

Now every time I reboot it tries to install again, even though it's 
already installed.
So why are my checks failing?

limit number of packages or time used during a WPKG run

Andrew Struiksma — 2012-12-14T18:55:40

We have several computers that are slow and are very out of date. We are
going to run WPKG once a day at shutdown/reboot. Just wondering if anyone
has come up with a way to limit the number of packages that are installed
during a single run of WPKG or better yet something that prevents WPKG from
installing more packages once a certain amount of time has elapsed?

Andrew
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/
_______________________________________________
wpkg-users mailing list
wpkg-users< at >lists.wpkg.org
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users