Unzipping problem
Cyrus
26 Nov 2007
Three of my .apm files in the XP english beta 3.2 script do not match the expected hash, so the apm zip files are added to the download queue. apup then downloads them and claims to upzip them, then they are deleted. The reason I say it cailms to unzip them is that the .apm's don't change version. I manually download the zips, checked the hashes of the apms in question, and found that they ARE a later version. That means that apup.exe (and it's uz.exe component) fails to extract the apms.
Also, in the Windows 2000 1.2 release, 5 apms that were recently added are not extracted at all from the zip file. Furthermore, when I try to download the new x64 release, all of the files from MS download fine, but not a single apm is extracted from the zip archives at the end. (Yes, I am running the latest version of apup).
In order for Antonis/Renato to test this, replace your dotnet3.5_enu.apm file with the following older version. Note that this is just one of the old apms which gives me trouble, and I can provide the others if needed.
Also, in the Windows 2000 1.2 release, 5 apms that were recently added are not extracted at all from the zip file. Furthermore, when I try to download the new x64 release, all of the files from MS download fine, but not a single apm is extracted from the zip archives at the end. (Yes, I am running the latest version of apup).
In order for Antonis/Renato to test this, replace your dotnet3.5_enu.apm file with the following older version. Note that this is just one of the old apms which gives me trouble, and I can provide the others if needed.
[AutoPatcher 5.6 Module] [General] Title=.Net Framework 3.5 Description=.NET Framework 3.5 builds incrementally on the new features added in .NET Framework 3.0. For example, feature sets in Windows Workflow Foundation (WF), Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) and Windows CardSpace. Author=Microsoft ModuleAuthor=Renato Ribeiro WebPage=http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/ ReleaseDate=20060000 [Behavior] ParentID=DOTNET_PARENT UniqueID=DOTNET3.5_ENU Critical=False AutoExpand=False Depends= TimeToInstall=600 TimeToRemove=600 RequiresReboot=True ModuleFolder=dotnet3.5_files [DetectionRegistry] RegistryPath=HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\NET Framework Setup\NDP\v3.5 KeyName=Install KeyValue=1 [DetectionFile] FilePath= FileName= FileVersion= [OperatingSystem] WindowsVersion=XP,2K3,VISTA SystemLanguage=1033,2057 [SystemComponents] InternetExplorer=ANY WindowsMediaPlayer=ANY DotNetFramework=ANY WindowsInstaller=ANY DirectX=ANY MSNMessenger=ANY [OfficeComponents] Word=ANY Excel=ANY PowerPoint=ANY Outlook=ANY Publisher=ANY Visio=ANY Project=ANY OneNote=ANY FrontPage=ANY InfoPath=ANY Access=ANY SharePointDesigner=ANY Groove=ANY [Installation] "Module:\dotnetfx35.exe" /quiet /norestart [Removal] "Module:\dotnetfx35.exe" /uninstall /quiet /norestart [Slipstream]
Erik Ramey
26 Nov 2007
Sorry but I have a quick question. Did you also update uz.exe found in the rt folder when you updated apup?
Cyrus
26 Nov 2007
Yes, I updated all of the files.
I found the problem, I checked the MD5 of the uz.exe which I had and it did not match the one from the previous versions. However, I downloaded apup again and it did not match that one wither, so it must have been corrupted during my first download. It works fine now, but this points out that apup could benefit by verifying the checksum of all of its own components before it tries to perform its intended function.
Edited by Cyrus, 26 November 2007 - 11:21 PM.
I found the problem, I checked the MD5 of the uz.exe which I had and it did not match the one from the previous versions. However, I downloaded apup again and it did not match that one wither, so it must have been corrupted during my first download. It works fine now, but this points out that apup could benefit by verifying the checksum of all of its own components before it tries to perform its intended function.
Edited by Cyrus, 26 November 2007 - 11:21 PM.
Erik Ramey
27 Nov 2007
I'll suggest this for a future build. You do bring up a good point about the hash of the file which I'll ingrain the proper hash to my head. I'll also see about adding the "good hash" to our FAQ too.


