Errors found dotnet
Whatacrock
28 Feb 2012
Ran autopatcher on my vista x86 machine today and came across 2 dotnet updates that refuse to install.
Tried three times and the hotfies still show with ticks in the checkbox, so decided to delve into the registry to find that both were already installed.
These are dotnet 1.1 sp1 updates :
Security Update Dotnet 1.1 Sp1 KB2416447(NDP1.1SP1-KB2416447)
Security Update Dotnet 1.1 Sp1 KB929729
It seems strange that nobody else has had this problem
Please look into this
Tried three times and the hotfies still show with ticks in the checkbox, so decided to delve into the registry to find that both were already installed.
These are dotnet 1.1 sp1 updates :
Security Update Dotnet 1.1 Sp1 KB2416447(NDP1.1SP1-KB2416447)
Security Update Dotnet 1.1 Sp1 KB929729
It seems strange that nobody else has had this problem
Please look into this
click-click
28 Feb 2012
KB2416447 has been superseded and KB929729 is for Vista and 2008 Server. AP should not be listing KB929729 because there is no definition for it as far as I can tell.
Edited by click-click, 28 February 2012 - 02:03 AM.
Edited by click-click, 28 February 2012 - 02:03 AM.
_def_x_
28 Feb 2012
Quote
Security Update Dotnet 1.1 Sp1 KB929729
KB929729 (MS07-040) files might have been updated by KB953297 (MS09-061), therfore KB929729 should have been removed, in favor of KB953297. You might check to see if for update 929729 in the registry, 953297 is the reference.
Whatacrock
28 Feb 2012
@click-click looked at the registry again and you are correct - no defintion for it
@_def_x_ KB953297 doesn't show up in the registry on my system
Found another, must be going blind in my old age, Update for .Net Framework 1.1 SP1 KB925168
@_def_x_ KB953297 doesn't show up in the registry on my system
Found another, must be going blind in my old age, Update for .Net Framework 1.1 SP1 KB925168
ViroMan
01 Mar 2012
huh... well the KB929729 is NOT in the .net APM script... for some reason it is in the Vistax86 critical file zip although its not listed in the script. Do you need that KB?
I read the MS09-061 and it doesn't say KB929729 was replaced.
Doesn't mean that it wasn't... it just doesn't say.
Click-Click how do you know KB2416447 has been superseded? A KB search on MS-bulletins only reports MS10-070.
Edited by ViroMan, 01 March 2012 - 01:46 AM.
Quote
KB929729 (MS07-040) files might have been updated by KB953297 (MS09-061), therfore KB929729 should have been removed, in favor of KB953297.
I read the MS09-061 and it doesn't say KB929729 was replaced.
Doesn't mean that it wasn't... it just doesn't say.Click-Click how do you know KB2416447 has been superseded? A KB search on MS-bulletins only reports MS10-070.
Edited by ViroMan, 01 March 2012 - 01:46 AM.
Whatacrock
01 Mar 2012
Just reporting what autopatcher was displaying and updating my vista system.
Usually let that one be updated by Windows Update.
Have a question for the number of folders and number of files in dotnet as since the last update autopatcher has once again gone to unofficial/unsupported version.
My dotnet folder shows 134 files for 56 folders... is this correct?
Usually let that one be updated by Windows Update.
Have a question for the number of folders and number of files in dotnet as since the last update autopatcher has once again gone to unofficial/unsupported version.
My dotnet folder shows 134 files for 56 folders... is this correct?
click-click
01 Mar 2012
Please refrain from trying to update .NET for Vista with APUP. Most of the definitions for Vista are out of date or missing. I am currently cleaning and updating the .NET component of APUP. Right now I would suggest to let WU do its job. I would also like to avoid making any changes to the current .NET before the updated version is made available.
Thanks ..
Edited by click-click, 01 March 2012 - 02:05 AM.
Thanks ..
Edited by click-click, 01 March 2012 - 02:05 AM.
Whatacrock
01 Mar 2012
@click-click I usually let vista do its own thing by using windows update but on this occassion ran autpatcher to check if everything was installed and ran it to update the system.
This machine is only used on occassions when my XP machine is busy and I want access to a PC
This machine is only used on occassions when my XP machine is busy and I want access to a PC
_def_x_
01 Mar 2012
If I read the OP's question correctly it was regarding Vista x86, and I was speaking to KB929729 .Net 1.1 SP1. This update was released as part of Security Bulletin (MS07-040, July 2007). The .Net 1.1 SP1 update for 2K and XP (x86 & x64) was KB928366. I was dealing with 2K, XP, and Vista at the time, the updates may apply elsewhere too.
KB953297 (MS09-061, October 2009) replaced the previous .Net 1.1 SP1 update(s) for 2K, XP(x86, x64), and Vista (x86 & x64), and likely other OSes.
Security Bulletin (MS11-078, October 2011), with respect to .Net 1.1 SP1, provided the following new update... KB2572067 for XP (x86 & x64), and Vista (x86 & x64). KB2572067 replaces KB2416447 (MS10-070).
Security Bulletin (MS11-100, December 2011), with respect to .Net 1.1 SP1, provided the following new update... KB2656353 for XP (x86 & x64), and Vista (x86 & x64). KB2656353 replaces KB2572067 (MS11-078).
Old updates and the bulletins get revised a few times after their original release dates, it may read like this...
... This was a revised bulletin note (the 4th one) 8 months after the original release.
Also, did you see this -> # 2010-11-09: (Cristiano) -KB953297 (doesn't install anymore)
Anyway, you guys can figure it out.
KB953297 (MS09-061, October 2009) replaced the previous .Net 1.1 SP1 update(s) for 2K, XP(x86, x64), and Vista (x86 & x64), and likely other OSes.
Security Bulletin (MS11-078, October 2011), with respect to .Net 1.1 SP1, provided the following new update... KB2572067 for XP (x86 & x64), and Vista (x86 & x64). KB2572067 replaces KB2416447 (MS10-070).
Security Bulletin (MS11-100, December 2011), with respect to .Net 1.1 SP1, provided the following new update... KB2656353 for XP (x86 & x64), and Vista (x86 & x64). KB2656353 replaces KB2572067 (MS11-078).
Old updates and the bulletins get revised a few times after their original release dates, it may read like this...
Quote
V1.4 (June 22, 2010): Removed .NET Framework 1.1 Service Pack 1 as an affected component on Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2.
... This was a revised bulletin note (the 4th one) 8 months after the original release.
Also, did you see this -> # 2010-11-09: (Cristiano) -KB953297 (doesn't install anymore)
Anyway, you guys can figure it out.
Whatacrock
02 Mar 2012
Still receiving an unofficial/unsupported version on autopatcher.
@click-click used the dotnet list you sent by pm and physically removed all rampant files and folders... still remains unofficial
Ran apupv1 and it keeps downloading the files that were removed and shredded.
Here is the spoiler
The same result happens with APUP V2so it seems there may be an error in the script(s) somewhere
Edited by Whatacrock, 02 March 2012 - 04:21 AM.
@click-click used the dotnet list you sent by pm and physically removed all rampant files and folders... still remains unofficial
Ran apupv1 and it keeps downloading the files that were removed and shredded.
Here is the spoiler
Spoiler
The same result happens with APUP V2so it seems there may be an error in the script(s) somewhere
Edited by Whatacrock, 02 March 2012 - 04:21 AM.
click-click
02 Mar 2012
I think some minor changes were made by ViroMan and the script has not been signed yet. If your folders and files match the list I sent you, just run AP without running APUP and it should show official.
http://www.autopatch...6731#entry16731
Edited by click-click, 02 March 2012 - 09:55 AM.
http://www.autopatch...6731#entry16731
Edited by click-click, 02 March 2012 - 09:55 AM.
ViroMan
02 Mar 2012
It says unofficial because it is not signed yet. It will get signed when the bugs are worked out.
Is he using the standard .NET script or your modified version?
Edited by ViroMan, 02 March 2012 - 09:57 AM.
Is he using the standard .NET script or your modified version?
Edited by ViroMan, 02 March 2012 - 09:57 AM.
Whatacrock
02 Mar 2012
@ViroMan using the script thats shows up in apup2
@click-click matched you list to mine, removed the errant files and folders.....still unofficial
I moved the dotnet folder but let behind the __dotnet.apm by mistake and ap still unofficial but when i moved out that apm file ap stated official
@click-click matched you list to mine, removed the errant files and folders.....still unofficial
I moved the dotnet folder but let behind the __dotnet.apm by mistake and ap still unofficial but when i moved out that apm file ap stated official
Whatacrock
05 Mar 2012
Have looked through the dotnet directory and not found anything out of the ordinary.
Have a total of 134 files stored in 56 folders for 0.98Gb disk space used.
@click-click your official release stated 127 files and 52 folders.
Don't understand why the difference
Have a total of 134 files stored in 56 folders for 0.98Gb disk space used.
@click-click your official release stated 127 files and 52 folders.
Don't understand why the difference
click-click
05 Mar 2012
Because ViroMan made some changes after the official release and the new script has not been signed so you won't get official until the new version is signed. The dotnet.rti file that you have is for the the list of files that I sent you. Since you reran APUP, you ended up with files that were new/changed, but the dotnet.rti is stll for the previous files. Once a script is signed, you will get a new dotnet.rti via APUP. As long as it is not signed, you will still get the old dotnet.rti which does not match the files you now have.
The delay in the signing has to do with the fact that I am doing house cleaning for .NET and ViroMan thought he would wait until I'm finished.
@ViroMan
Maybe you should sign the last .NET release so we can request that the users have an official AP status before selecting the new .NET that I will be releasing shortly.
Edited by click-click, 05 March 2012 - 12:51 PM.
The delay in the signing has to do with the fact that I am doing house cleaning for .NET and ViroMan thought he would wait until I'm finished.
@ViroMan
Maybe you should sign the last .NET release so we can request that the users have an official AP status before selecting the new .NET that I will be releasing shortly.
Edited by click-click, 05 March 2012 - 12:51 PM.
Whatacrock
05 Mar 2012
Thanks for information click-click..I was starting to go crazy as I used your release list and moved the apms and folders one by one to another location.When all were moved to different location(forgot the _dotnet.apm) I ran autopatcher and got the unofficial status and then remembered the apm file.. status changed to official....then realized the dotnet scrip was still unsigned.At least this seems to be sorted out
Thanks one and all
Thanks one and all
ViroMan
05 Mar 2012
Quote
Maybe you should sign the last .NET release so we can request that the users have an official AP status before selecting the new .NET that I will be releasing shortly.
click-click
06 Mar 2012
I keep finding things and that means new hashes, testing, etc. and that gets a bit time consuming syncing between the files and the scripts. Hopefully, all will go smoothly when the .NET split is made available.
