GUI Change... Please
Posted 06 April 2009 - 01:42 PM
Posted 06 April 2009 - 01:59 PM
then, i've just extracted the content of this kb, by choosing this command:
WindowsXP-KB942288-v3-x86.exe /x:c:\cpd\kb942288 (but you may choose any folder, as you wish).
then, look into C:\CPD\kb942288\UPDATE folder. you will have in there the kb942288-v3.cat file. then, take the md5 for that file. you will got ad7c4890876b9562bd526c9c83eb2e14
you see, it's pretty easy overlook something
Posted 06 April 2009 - 02:24 PM
Download from the link given, check the Digital signature, to see that it's genuine:
C:\TEST\kb942288_20090406_new\WindowsXP-KB942288-v3-x86.exe: Signers: Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Code Signing PCA Microsoft Root Authority Signing date: 20:13 22/05/2008
Take the file MD5...
Then extract the contents and I STILL get 3910c17....
Posted 06 April 2009 - 02:35 PM
i've moved this file to another folder, just to be able to get the hdsfv file for just the files from this kb. if you can, please compare booth. we may have missing something
also, i'm uploading more details to our ftp right now. james, if you can, please take a look into the file that is at my folder, at our ftp (burn after reading)
ps: sorry for the .bmp file, but i don't have an better tool in here
Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:16 PM
Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:24 PM
also, the .cat file is the exact same one that is at my system at home. it looks more like an issue from the md5 tool.
Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:41 PM
Yes, that's quite possible. It's the results in the RAR that are corrupted. Not just the MD5s, but also some of the file sizes. Have you tried using md5deep from the Command Prompt, or something else?
Posted 06 April 2009 - 05:05 PM
could be an nice thing if someone else do the same test, extracting the content of this kb, downloaded straight from ms, and compare the files. this could be an of those very rare cases where different files has the exact same md5. it's rare, but it may happen and also it may be an issue that comes straight from ms mirrors
Posted 06 April 2009 - 05:06 PM
...KB832414_MSXML2.5_x86_enu.apm_files - (and 1 file)
...MSXML2.6_files - (and 1 file)
...MSXML6SP1_x86_files - (empty)
There are script commands to flush out old XML 2.5/2.6 stuff in Windows 2000, which I can add to the XP script as well.
...KB942763_xp_x86_enu.apm_files - (and 1 file)
Posted 06 April 2009 - 06:13 PM
then that would be how I got it.
I think it would be nice to have md5 files added now and again when scripts get updated so you had something to run that is a little easier to troubleshoot a release with - as an example:
The md5 can verify the release (like a script - are all the files present) but can also offer an exact number of files in a given folder, when opened in a program that gives off line numbers, then you highlight the same folder in the release and if the number of files differs (Explorer - Properties) - there is a stray. I'm sure there is a program out there that can compare the data between 2 files and highlight the differences - file "A" has 3 more exe and 2 more apm files than file "B" and this is where the difference is located - comparing the md5 offered with the script (an additional file in the 7z) and the md5 I create at my end.
Posted 06 April 2009 - 06:38 PM
Incidentally, an extra empty folder will not cause a release to go "Unofficial". Only extra files.
Posted 06 April 2009 - 07:59 PM
Posted 06 April 2009 - 11:08 PM
With the removal of these strays from Extras,
...\APWalls_files (4 files)
...\NewWalls_files (18 files)
my AddOns.Misc release is Official.
...DirectX (March 2009)
...Java Runtime (JRE) 6u13
Posted 07 April 2009 - 07:14 AM
I've been following this thread over the past few days, and although I never payed too much attention to this entire unofficial/unsupported thing, up until recently.
The releases I downloaded *never* showed as official, and I've been using apup from the day one.
I'm using the following releases:
AutoPatcher Updater 1.0.5 AutoPatcher Engine 5.6.81 AutoPatcher for Windows XP SP3 (x86) - English DirectX Addon Pack NET Framework Addon Pack - English Extras Addon Pack - English AutoPatcher for Office 2003 (English) Office Addon Pack (English) - EnglishLast night, I decided to re-download all of the above listed releases to and see what the outcome would be. I left apup to download everything overnight. The download went without a hiccup, but it *still* shows as unofficial, as you can see from here:
I've also generated md5 hashes for the entire Autopatcher folder, so in case anyone wants to take a look:
Posted 07 April 2009 - 09:55 AM
Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:09 AM
Here's the screenshot:
Dang, that's what you get when trying to do three different things at once...
It isn't Office 2003 release that's troublesome, but rather Office Addons.
Edited by high5, 07 April 2009 - 11:08 AM.
Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:44 AM
-->> I'll edit (update) my post to keep the thread from growing.
04.07.09 - Did running APUP on all the releases (getting the latest files) fix anything? Always run APUP again before posting to have
the latest data. BTW, I had ran APUP and updated my Extras with Cristiano's fix, it did make the Extras show "True" (was "False") but
it didn't make my release Official until I found the strays (extra files) - you may just need to update your releases???.
Your md5 includes java jre 6u13 but your screenshot #36/code #34 is missing this. I used your own md5 and created your release,
...Office 2003 English
...DotNet Addon Pack
...Office Addon Pack
...DirectX Addon Pack - March 2009
...Java Runtime (JRE) - 6u13
and it checks, it shows as Official (and passes using your md5 - 791 parts), and an Office Addon Pack that
had to have been Official.
Edited by gUiTaR_mIkE, 07 April 2009 - 01:10 PM.
Posted 07 April 2009 - 11:17 AM
the latest data.
As far as strays are concerned, I'll look into it when I get some time.
Posted 07 April 2009 - 11:48 AM
thanks for the warning
Posted 07 April 2009 - 01:05 PM
I created the same release based on High5's md5 (exactly) and it passed and is Official - see post 37.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users