exclusive module running - please add
Cristiano
04 Jan 2008
due discussions in topic http://www.autopatcher.com/forums/index.ph...&#entry1501 i keep reminding myself that a lot of people may risk their own machines because his own behavior when deploying entire service packs through AP. the main issue: they need de-select all modules that shall apply to those systems manually to prevent issues. it would be a lot easier for them if something like:
Exclusive=True
is present at [Behavior] in .apm files. this setting shall prevent that any other module be selected also, preventing mistakes that may result in big crashes
Exclusive=True
is present at [Behavior] in .apm files. this setting shall prevent that any other module be selected also, preventing mistakes that may result in big crashes
Cristiano
06 Jan 2008
M2Ys4U, the idea is not have 2 modules with this flag. the whole idea is avoid deploy an entire sp and also install several other updates, that will damage the system. so, this sort of tag shall be restricted to this kind of situation.
beside that, we also have this:
[OperatingSystem]
WindowsVersion=XP_SP2
so, you also can prevent 2 modules with that tag by selecting the OS to that module be showed (you will not apply sp1 over sp2, of course). also, at module checking, autopatcher.exe can check that and disable those modules if more than one is found to the same OS sp
edit: other idea, since you may very well have some sort of update that also can't run with other things running at same time: if AP detects that there's 2 or more exclusive modules, AP reports that, saying that the user just can chose one of those at at once
beside that, we also have this:
[OperatingSystem]
WindowsVersion=XP_SP2
so, you also can prevent 2 modules with that tag by selecting the OS to that module be showed (you will not apply sp1 over sp2, of course). also, at module checking, autopatcher.exe can check that and disable those modules if more than one is found to the same OS sp
edit: other idea, since you may very well have some sort of update that also can't run with other things running at same time: if AP detects that there's 2 or more exclusive modules, AP reports that, saying that the user just can chose one of those at at once
M2Ys4U
06 Jan 2008
In an ideal world, there would never be two modules with that flag, but we don't live in an ideal world and must account for such incompatibilities.
With the alert idea, what happens if the user selects an unattended install?
I'm not trying to shoot down your idea, by the way, just pointing out some points where it might fall over.
With the alert idea, what happens if the user selects an unattended install?
I'm not trying to shoot down your idea, by the way, just pointing out some points where it might fall over.
Cristiano
06 Jan 2008
> what happens if the user selects an unattended install?
AP shall prevent that, giving you an alert about that. at least, saying something like: ALERT: more than one exclusive update selected. continue anyway? and it shall happend even for unattended install, to prevent crash an entire system because someone was too lazzy to think about "dude, this one shall be installed alone". ms doesn't do that sometimes? so, why ap can't? just imagine, someone running sp2 or even an sp3 and several other updates at same time. i'm not even talking about antiviruses programs, but what happends if?
about shot down, i believe that talking about something can lead to better options to prevent entire system crash.
AP shall prevent that, giving you an alert about that. at least, saying something like: ALERT: more than one exclusive update selected. continue anyway? and it shall happend even for unattended install, to prevent crash an entire system because someone was too lazzy to think about "dude, this one shall be installed alone". ms doesn't do that sometimes? so, why ap can't? just imagine, someone running sp2 or even an sp3 and several other updates at same time. i'm not even talking about antiviruses programs, but what happends if?
about shot down, i believe that talking about something can lead to better options to prevent entire system crash.
sh1leshk4
07 Jan 2008
An alert would suffice but not the option to continue.
The user has to select only one that the user want to install first and unmark other exclusive updates.
Exclusive should stay exclusive; no other update(s) should run alongside.
If being exclusive means it only has the added alert, then it's not exactly exclusive at all.
The user has to select only one that the user want to install first and unmark other exclusive updates.
Exclusive should stay exclusive; no other update(s) should run alongside.
If being exclusive means it only has the added alert, then it's not exactly exclusive at all.
