Why RVM Integrator 1.4 Deletes SP2.CAB?

Questions about Update Pack making? Ask here.
Post Reply
end3rkid
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:30 pm

Why RVM Integrator 1.4 Deletes SP2.CAB?

Post by end3rkid » Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:32 am

After add RVMUpdatePack2.1.0, RVMAddonsWMP10_2.8, Kels_Uber_Addon_v7.3.7, Kels_swgreed_codec_addon_v2.6, Kels_Runtimes_addon_v1.3, Kel_TweakUI_Addon_v1.1 and MrsP_DAMN_NFO_Viewer_Addon_v2.10.0032 using RVM Integrator v1.4 I noted that the SP2.CAB is missing from the i386 folder.

Already check all MD5 from the Addons, couldn't try with previous RVM Integrator versions since they not support the new Pack Compression (7zip)

TIA.

User avatar
Aserone
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:46 pm
Location: Opioid dependent head.

Post by Aserone » Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:23 am

It merges it with "DRIVER.CAB", so it's perfectly normal.
//Aserone-Foxy | EULA: Everything I say/post is a lie and/or forwarded from swim.

User avatar
orcoxp
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by orcoxp » Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:56 am

This is far from new behaviour
Chris Thomson
AKA OrcoXP

PHP/MySQL/phpMyAdmin 2 & 3 successfully running simultaneously on XP SP3 IIS.

User avatar
Siginet
Site Admin
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Siginet » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:55 am

What's an SP2.cab? :rolleyes: :wink:
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

Sereby
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:15 am
Location: Germany

Post by Sereby » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:05 am

thats not good siginet!
nuhi and i knows that mergin the sp2.cab with the driver.cab could make problems because some programs need the sp2.cab (dont ask why o.o) and sometimes windows setup cannot work without it! i had that problem with a old version of my updatepack too. some persons reported problems with windows setup and after i changed the updating process so that it updates the sp2.cab and driver.cab all was ok

User avatar
buletov
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:30 am

Post by buletov » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:47 am

What programs?
Never know what life is gonna throw at you.

Sereby
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:15 am
Location: Germany

Post by Sereby » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:59 am

as i sayed donst aks why.. nuhi sayed me that some programs need this.. i dont know which

User avatar
ton80
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:10 am

Post by ton80 » Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:43 am

Sereby wrote:as i sayed donst aks why.. nuhi sayed me that some programs need this.. i dont know which
I think we are gonna need to know if you can find out for us from nuhi, please. Sorry for asking, but if this for real a big thing then it's a big thing especially when one is in a jam trying to reinstall Windows on an only PC in possession with no internet access for miles around for 'bug' resolution during install until that PC is running, like me for example. Will this affect the install of Windows???
Last edited by ton80 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ton80

User avatar
RyanVM
Site Admin
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by RyanVM » Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:44 am

nuhi's made that blanket statement to me before but has never backed it up with any proof. I have yet to see an actual problem with doing it nor have I heard of any actual problems in doing it. So after nearly two years of doing it without incident, I see no reason to stop now.
Get up to $200 off on hosting from the same people who host this website!
http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2357

User avatar
Siginet
Site Admin
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Siginet » Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:14 pm

I've never had a problem either. It saves tons of space when you combine them into 1 cab. As long as you have the correct edits to txtsetup.sif... then windows knows the files are in driver.cab instead of sp2.cab. This meathod has been highly used for a very long time and like ryan states... no one has ever reported an issue with it.
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

User avatar
nuhi
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:29 pm
Contact:

Post by nuhi » Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:25 pm

Basically I don't remember exact people but 2 requests to return it to default seemed reason enough.
nLite deletes older files from the cabs so it's all the same. And Sereby don't quote me in your arguments.
nliteos.com|vlite.net
Remove components and customize Windows

User avatar
Siginet
Site Admin
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Siginet » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:02 pm

Personally the only benefit I can see with not combining driver.cab and sp2.cab would be the speed of direct integrating the updatepack. It would actually shave 5-10 mins or so on the process. Which would be very nice. But I know the updatepack has to add files to driver.cab either way... so driver.cab get's repackaged wether we like it or not.
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

User avatar
MrNxDmX
Moderator
Posts: 3112
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:33 am

Post by MrNxDmX » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:06 pm

I dont think that 2 request is enough. For over 2 years, nobody cried about spX.cab here, and it didnt cause errors anytime. So why change a basic function of integration, as it makes installation source little, and less complex?

User avatar
nuhi
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:29 pm
Contact:

Post by nuhi » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:20 pm

nlite merged cabs for a first half-year, then I changed it so it looks more like a original.

Siginet, how could it be faster?
I still recompress both, just keep newer file in one of them where it is by default.
nliteos.com|vlite.net
Remove components and customize Windows

User avatar
nuhi
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:29 pm
Contact:

Post by nuhi » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:22 pm

MrNxDmx, there could be more requests like this one from Sereby if it wasn't like this for a last year, year and a half.
If you find a size difference let me know and I'll put an option for it.
nliteos.com|vlite.net
Remove components and customize Windows

User avatar
orcoxp
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by orcoxp » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:41 pm

With the number of users that this update pack has and the billions of installations with it...I find it hard to believe that combining these 2 CABs causes any problems...and even if it did then we would have 2 causes:

1. the creater of the pack neglected a line in whatever file that refers to a file in that cab or

2. the creater of the program has referred to SP2.CAB specifically which is a poor method.

Either way they are easily proven.

@Mods: I vote we lock this thread and if someone can come up with any hard evidence then they can create a new thread with the appropriate title.
Chris Thomson
AKA OrcoXP

PHP/MySQL/phpMyAdmin 2 & 3 successfully running simultaneously on XP SP3 IIS.

User avatar
nuhi
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:29 pm
Contact:

Post by nuhi » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:46 pm

orcoxp, yeah sure, I never said that I'm positive about it, just received a few reports.
But judging from your signature you probably see me as something bad so no point in explaining anyway.
nliteos.com|vlite.net
Remove components and customize Windows

User avatar
orcoxp
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:05 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by orcoxp » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:06 pm

There you go again...assuming something without having the evidence. This siginature has been here since I needed to find another method of making my unattended CD when I wasn't pleased with the results that I got from nLite. Aside from the footprint I was concerned about it not being open source like Ryans pack.

And explaining what? You already said that you don't even remember who asked you let alone you never proved it. You got nothing to stand on.
Chris Thomson
AKA OrcoXP

PHP/MySQL/phpMyAdmin 2 & 3 successfully running simultaneously on XP SP3 IIS.

User avatar
boooggy
Posts: 1297
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:20 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by boooggy » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:09 pm

orco can u chill out?.....if u dont use nlite waht is the point of this disscution????

User avatar
nuhi
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:29 pm
Contact:

Post by nuhi » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:12 pm

orcoxp, show me where do I defend myself? I said, oh this is getting boring, I'm not sure why but I got few reports and that's all it takes to me. If I'm too easy on my users then let it be but please stop putting words into my mouth, and don't be so offensive.

boooggy, good point
nliteos.com|vlite.net
Remove components and customize Windows

User avatar
Siginet
Site Admin
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Siginet » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:56 pm

Hey everybody let's calm down.

@nuhi I was just stating that if we didn't have to repackage driver.cab it would be faster. But I know the updatepack has to recompile driver.cab either way. I'm just stating that if it is at all possible to add the updatepack without having to repackage driver.cab then it would make integration of it much faster... but the filesize of the disk would be much larger. But if it is possible... it would't be a bad idea to give users a choice before integrating the updatepack.
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

User avatar
nuhi
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:29 pm
Contact:

Post by nuhi » Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:34 pm

Ok, basically why I was confused by the speedup claim is because I wouldn't even consider not recompressing while we are talking about updating it.
nliteos.com|vlite.net
Remove components and customize Windows

User avatar
RyanVM
Site Admin
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by RyanVM » Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:39 am

OK, if I wasn't going to merge the two cabs, I'd do exactly what nuhi does and at least clean driver.cab so that redundant files aren't in both it and sp2.cab. Doing that would probably take just as long if not longer than just merging them into one CAB. However, solid archives tend to compress better when they have more data to work with, so I strongly believe that the size of the two archives would still be larger than the size of a unified archive (IIRC, the difference is ~2MB). Finally, I have yet to hear a compelling reason to change, so I'm not planning on doing so.
Get up to $200 off on hosting from the same people who host this website!
http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2357

ophiel
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 1:10 am

Post by ophiel » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:53 am

i've never ever ever had an issue with the merged cabs, and quite frankly i don't think it's possible for it to be an issue.

skinlayers
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Apple BootCamp beta requires sp2.cab

Post by skinlayers » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:17 pm

I did recently run into an issue with sp2.cab not being present caused an issue. Apple's BootCamp beta (for dual booting an Intel Mac) requires Windows XP SP2. I believe they even mention slipstreaming in their instructions. I'd been using nlite for a while, but it wouldn't recognize my discs as having SP2. I tried the integrator and got the same problem. In the end I had to use nlite and ONLY integrate SP2 to prevent it from merging sp2.cab with driver.cab.

Not a huge issue, but an annoying one none the less.

skinlayers

User avatar
RyanVM
Site Admin
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by RyanVM » Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:44 pm

You know, you could probably just make a 0 byte sp2.cab in i386 to get around that if Apple is so retarded as to use sp2.cab as its basis for checking for the presence of SP2.

EDIT: Damn hippies.
Get up to $200 off on hosting from the same people who host this website!
http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2357

TechnoHunter
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:13 am

Post by TechnoHunter » Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:55 am

ROFL

thank you.. i needed a good laugh :)

User avatar
Zacam
Moderator
Posts: 615
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Zacam » Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:06 pm

That and why bother with bootcamp? OS X x86. Nuf said.

User avatar
scorp
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:00 pm

Post by scorp » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:16 pm

Using Backup Exec System Recovery will cause a problem when you use the Restore Anywhere feature. It will prompt you to insert the Windows Service Pack 2 CD. But if the sp2.cab is present in the "C:\WINDOWS\Driver Cache\i386" folder, then all is well. I have tested it with sp2.cab being the original, a copy of the combined driver.cab and zero length file and it worked fine with all of them.

The only problem is remembering to create that file, Is there anyway for you
to have that as an option maybe? Something like a checkbox to create an sp2.cab holder?

For now I have just included SP2.CAB under the <CD>\$OEM$\$$\Driver Cache\i386\ folder on the unattend CD.

HTH
scorp :)

User avatar
Zacam
Moderator
Posts: 615
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Zacam » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:56 pm

Then I have to wonder what file it specifically might be looking for within the SP2.CAB.

Having the SP2.CAB in addition to the Integration of RVMUpdatePack is a redundancy that is unecessary.
Then again, if you wanted to keep it happy, you could always copy the original unmerged drver.cab and sp2.cab. You would need to remember to return the sp2.cab information to the various setup files.

User avatar
RyanVM
Site Admin
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by RyanVM » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:18 pm

scorp wrote:For now I have just included SP2.CAB under the <CD>\$OEM$\$$\Driver Cache\i386\ folder on the unattend CD.
That's exactly what I'd do. A zero-length sp2.cab on the unattended CD will make it so you never have to remember in the future :)
Get up to $200 off on hosting from the same people who host this website!
http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2357

User avatar
scorp
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:00 pm

Post by scorp » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:14 am

Zacam wrote:Then I have to wonder what file it specifically might be looking for within the SP2.CAB.
My guess would be none. I used an original SP2.cab and then compared them to the merged DRIVER.cab. There were a bunch of files that were obviously newer in the merged version. But even with having the old SP2.cab file there it still kept all the newer files.

Thats why I did the zero length file. It apparently just wanted to see that file to say it was the SP2 version. (At least in my case).. :)

Post Reply