AutoPatcher Forum

Hi can you please change the text "Unofficial/Unsupported Release" from red to something like Yellow or White, Blue and Red really do not go well together, hurts my eyes just looking at it.

be kind to my eyes

right now, we can't, because in order to do that, we need change the autopatcher.exe code and we are unable to do that right now.

by the way, 2 things:
- what release that you have that is showing also unofficial?
- White is the color for the official release

[]s

darkan9el, I feel for you.

You and I might have the same issues when it comes to colors, our color decoding cones overstimulate with red and it can
cause eye fatigue. We have about 250,000 of these decoder cones of which about 80,000+ deal with red - check it out.

Mike

 Cristiano, on Apr 3 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

It's showing unofficial for me too.

I'm guessing it's because of Office 2003/Office Addons releases, right?

right now, i know that aren't signed autopatcher xp ptg (because there's an issue related to the date of the modules that shall be fixed and i had no time to fix it yet) and vista_x64 script (i've just updated this one a few minutes ago and i don't have the tool to sign it right now).

the other releases should be signed. but in order to check that, each release should run alone in his own folder. also, to track the script that is having this behavior, you need run the target system. i don't have several of scripts targets to properly test it

[]s

I'm showing these as Official:
_2000 SP4
_Vista x86
_Office Addon Pack

and these as Unofficial:
_XP SP3 x86
_Extras

I don't know about Office 2003, it isn't installed.

Mike
Edited by gUiTaR_mIkE, 04 April 2009 - 07:35 PM.

The Extras pack is shown as Unofficial for me... all others (that I have) show as official.

i've found an orphan file lost in the extras folder. this may be the cause of this issue, since if i do have an file that yours don't, then the release will become unofficial. i've signed this one again and the new rti file is now online. the annoying thing is that i have all the files that was signed and i see this one also unofficial by some reason. this may be caused by any other thing too. can you please run this script again, just to see if this one is now working also expected?

thanks

[]s

edit forget about the "unofficial" part of this post. i've found the issue. i was missing one autopatcher file (the rti file for autopatcher himself...)

Tested, this is fixed now.

What's still Unsigned that's keeping my AddOns module Unofficial?

My AddOns release contains:
_Extras
_DotNet
_Java Runtime (JRE)
_DirectX (Nov. 08)

I haven't wanted to take the time to update DirectX just yet (dialup), everything else has been updated. I removed
DirectX from the test copy (DirectX folder, apm, rti), ran AutoPatcher again and it still shows Unofficial even without
DirectX showing up?

This is everything -> My.AddOns.Release

Mike

BTW, Unofficial/Unsigned Release might be a better phrase, there is still plenty of support offered, and most
releases have always shown as Unofficial - for me anyway.
Edited by gUiTaR_mIkE, 05 April 2009 - 07:33 PM.

mike, probably this issue be related to an orphan file in some place. maybe some .zip/.7z file lost in some place

i've merged the ptb release with java, direct x, extras enu, etc like described in this image and it still shows also official. also my IC is faster than yours, i've set do download the whole enu release, with java, extras, direct x, etc. i will be able to see in here if this is still official because some of those files are multilang. if it shows me also official, i will made an md5 check file with hkSFV (it's pretty small, just 227 KB) to allow you better track this issue in your system. my download will end in 1h or so.

[]s

done. i've finished the download of the following releases:
dotnet addon
windows xp sp3 english
autopatcher engine
directx addon
extras
javaruntime

it shows also official and there's an image stating that in here

mike, may be my mistake (your image isn't loading for me right now), but i didn't saw an mention of autopatcher engine when i first saw it. also an hint: try check if the autopatcher engine is complete in your system. it may be just an orphan file, who knows?

the md5 to check the downloads and orphan files is attached in this post. please, just save it in your apup folder then hit the .md5 file to check the whole thing. only one issue: i have the march version for direct x, so this one may not match

[]s

autopatcher.exe is part of the release and good, and I downloaded the latest DirectX so it is up-to-date.

I'm guessing the Official-izing of a release only looks at the modules directory, otherwise this couldn't pass - I wouldn't think.
From your md5:
1064736 18:16.41 2009-04-05 win9xnt\VB6.0-KB290887-X86.exe
1028368 17:13.46 2004-03-17 win9xnt\vbrun60sp6.exe
The apengine script:
ActionAfterDownload.DeleteFile=autopatcher:\win9xnt\VB6.0-KB290887-X86.exe

What is true is the scripts can't be counted on as the only way to clean up the modules directory, otherwise my Extras would not have had _abderdr laying stray.

So, after hours of trying and having removed files from both the Extras, and XP SP3 with no Official statement yet, for the love of all things sacred, is there another way to parse these folders to pick up these stray files? Both of these modules were assembled by the scripts, so anything stray at this point is something the script downloaded and now has left behind.

Mike

> autopatcher.exe
yes, it is. and there's one .rti file to this one too.

now that you talked about VB6.0-KB290887-X86.exe, it's funny, because this file was supposed to be removed after the download and still, it is in there. but doesn't matter, that file doesn't count to the signed files

another funny thing: the ENU release says that my windows installer is out-of-date. later i will look over it

> so anything stray at this point is something the script downloaded and now has left behind
yes, but it's complicated. one part is check your folder with an full check of one full download. the other part, is check your folder with one full download. the tricky part is that you may have all the files than a full download has, but you also may have some lost files too. so please, if you have that hkSFV that i've talked about, please generate the md5 for your whole download folder. by crossing those checks, the orphan files shall be pointed

[]s

Quote

both files check and match that of the releases I have that are Official.

Quote

I have no idea what this means.

Quote

I am (have), by working in reverse but your md5 has about 200 more lines with the other releases added so it is a little more difficult but I'm
making progress - here's what I've found so far, and I think there is one or two more files in Tweaks.

The strays so far.
-> muweb.cat, muweb.dll, muweb.inf
...\KB832414_MSXML2.5_x86_enu.apm_files - (and 1 file)
...\MSXML2.6_files - (and 1 file)
...\MSXML6SP1_x86_files - (empty)
-> MSXML2.6_enu.apm
-> KB832414_MSXML2.5_x86_enu.apm
...\KB942763_xp_x86_enu.apm_files - (and 1 file)

Mike
Edited by gUiTaR_mIkE, 07 April 2009 - 03:06 AM.

> one part is check your folder with an full check of one full download. the other part, is check your folder with one full download.
it's complicated describe this, but imagine that you have 2 pictures: one with only you (picture 1) and another one you with something in your hand (picture 2). if you match picture 1 with 2, you will find yourself, but you are talking about look only for you and just you, doesn't matter if you have something in your hand or not. but if you take picture 2 also template, then you may not find something in your hand at picture 1 and that will point the issue that you have

> your md5 has about 200 more lines
yes, because it is for an software check it. to generate the md5 with hkSFV, just choose file, new, md5. it will scan the entire folder, creating another md5 file that can be crossed with the one that i have in here, just by double-clicking the file

> muweb
if i'm not mistaken, those files are from microsoft update and those files us to be updated very often

> KB832414, MSXML2.6, MSXML6
i don't have those in here. it may be the cause of this issue, since the apup signature system also checks for files that wasn't supposed to be in there too. probably those files are the remains of an old release, who knows?

[]s

Mike, for XP.SP3, can you please:

(1) Open a Command Prompt
(2) CD to your XP.SP3\modules folder
(3) Execute:

dir /s /b > XP_SP3_files.txt

then email to me, or upload to the Beta forum, the file XP_SP3_files.txt

I can then run this through my compare tools to see what extra files that you have and why they are not being dealt with in the script.

--

Update - It's official it's Official - LOL - and yes I'm happy.

These were the strays needing removal.

-> XP.SP3\modules\Components\
stray (in the Components folder) -> muweb.cat, muweb.dll, muweb.inf

-> XP.SP3\modules\Components\__msxml
...KB832414_MSXML2.5_x86_enu.apm_files - (and 1 file)
...MSXML2.6_files - (and 1 file)
...MSXML6SP1_x86_files - (empty)
MSXML2.6_enu.apm
KB832414_MSXML2.5_x86_enu.apm

-> XP.SP3\modules\Critical
...KB942763_xp_x86_enu.apm_files - (and 1 file)

Also, I want to be clear, I wasn't complaining, I'm amazed you guys do this, really, my eyes are bleeding right now and I can understand
how very easy it is to overlook something.

I would like to figure out a way to confirm at least the number of files in a release regardless if it is Official or not, that is how I got
to the strays. There were 80 files in Cristiano's md5 for Critical and I had 81. I wonder If any of Karen's tools can compare 2 md5 files?

Quote

What tools are these? Anyway, thank you ALL for you efforts with AutoPatcher/APUP.

Mike

> in Cristiano's md5 for Critical and I had 81
and yet booth are official. interesting. probably you have an file that was removed and your .rti file for the main release still looks for that file. since i've downloaded it yesterday, i've didn't got that file

by the way: i've tracked the issue related to KB942288 that i've talked about a few posts ago. this is an issue that is in there since at least 06/06/2008 and nobody else has notice that the detection for this file looks for an wrong md5 . of course, this one was overlooked by thousands of people so far and nobody else has noticed before (or at least have reported it). in deed, it's very easy overlook something

[]s

Quote

No, no, it was the fact that I had 1 extra file (81, not 80) that I knew there was 1 more stray to remove before the release would be Official.

Mike