Difference in MakeISO with RVMI 1.4.1 and 1.4.2

Questions about Update Pack making? Ask here.
Post Reply
TechnoHunter
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:13 am

Difference in MakeISO with RVMI 1.4.1 and 1.4.2

Post by TechnoHunter » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:29 pm

hi all, is it just me or is something strange about the way that the integrator makes iso files with the latest version..

with version 1.4.1 (set to use cdimage and cdimage parameters) i make an image (named steve.iso)

i get a md5hash for the iso.. (hold on to that info..)

same set of files (no changes at all) but running 1.4.2, same procedure, once again no changes.. cdimage with cdimage params

get the md5hash for the new file.. and they are different!

any clue why?


the reason i started checking is that i used the latest integrator to make an iso file for a machine that needed rebuilt and the idiot thing failed to copy oembios.bin... first time that has EVER happened to me..

took the older integrator.. the 1.4.1 version with the exact same files.. and made an image.. it worked.. no file copy errors..

so.. slightly baffled here, any ideas anyone?

TechnoHunter

User avatar
rytukz
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:43 am
Location: Lithuania

Post by rytukz » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:43 pm

different date modification of files (in your cd images) = different MD5

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

Post by Siginet » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:22 pm

Nothing was changed for iso compilattion. 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 are pretty much the same alltogether. There were very minor changes.
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

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

Post by TechnoHunter » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:37 pm

rykutz@ i literally made each CD image within 10 minutes of each other.. nothing changed with the folder used to make the image.. (no integrations made) just opened 1.4.1, made image then closed and opened 1.4.2 and made image..

Siginet@ if there are not that many differences how come the file sizes are 200k diff in size?

1.4.1 = 911k in size (on disc)
1.4.2 = 756k in size (on disc)

i believe you, after all you wrote it! but i am just curious..

funny thing is.. i remade the iso with 1.4.2 again and tested it (no changes made to folder that is used)
and this time it worked.. (no file copy errors) so i am back to being confused -sigh-

i still wonder about the differences though ;)

thanks for the replies all.. much appreciated

TechnoHunter

User avatar
RyanVM
Site Admin
Posts: 5187
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by RyanVM » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:43 pm

The file size is smaller due to using a better 7zip executable for decompression, like the changelog on Siginet's site says.
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 » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:28 am

ahh! that would explain the smaller size.. and as for the goofy iso that it made i am chalking it up to the computer gremlins, as it made it successfully the next time.. -shrug- i hate having things work when they wanna and not when they don't, but if needs must (before i go nuts trying to find out what happened) i think i will ignore it :)

thanks again for the info all

TechnoHunter

yumeyao
Moderator
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: Taiyuan, Shanxi, PR China

Post by yumeyao » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:27 am

i want to know how this "better 7zip" is used.
isn't it ture that the only compression for XP CD is cab?? how 7z is used??
Image
My work list(Hosted by dumpydooby)

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:04 pm

TechnoHunter wrote:Siginet@ if there are not that many differences how come the file sizes are 200k diff in size?

1.4.1 = 911k in size (on disc)
1.4.2 = 756k in size (on disc)
yumeyao wrote:isn't it true that the only compression for XP CD is cab?? how 7z is used?
I'm sure that TechnoHunter was referring to the size of the Integrator, not the size of the CD it will produce. The code that allows 7-Zip decompression in the Integrator is smaller than in the previous version; thus, a smaller Integrator. 7-Zip is included so addons and update packs can be compressed in that format, which makes them up to 40% smaller than CABs.

It is nice to know that for all of the functionality the Integrator has, it's coded efficiently enough to fit onto one floppy with plenty of space left over.

biatche
I can't read
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:49 am

Post by biatche » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:25 pm

i have experienced this same issue, the output size of the integration can be very different. i didnt know what the issue was, but guess im not alone..though after trying and trying, i guess in the end, i made an iso error free.

User avatar
n7Epsilon
Moderator
Posts: 624
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:37 am
Location: Cairo, Egypt

Post by n7Epsilon » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:44 pm

I once had this issue (that the integrator was not compressing the files listed in the [i386_compress] section) resulting in a huge source (800+ MB), and then I discovered the reason was that one of the addon packs called its entries.ini file entries.ini so when the integrator reached the "Compressing files..." part, the entries.ini with the list of files to compress had been overwritten with the entries.ini of an addon pack.
Last edited by n7Epsilon on Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RyanVM
Site Admin
Posts: 5187
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by RyanVM » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:35 pm

I'm pretty sure the next Integrator update will make sure that scenario doesn't happen anymore.
Get up to $200 off on hosting from the same people who host this website!
http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2357

biatche
I can't read
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:49 am

Post by biatche » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:42 pm

whats a quick workaround for this? since i dont think another integrator would be out that soon

User avatar
RyanVM
Site Admin
Posts: 5187
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by RyanVM » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:42 pm

um, expand the archive, rename the entries file, and repack it?
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 » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:47 pm

Just to let you all know... that is not a bug with the integrator. That is a bug with the addon.

Currently I would have to make a few big changes to the coding structure of the integrator to make it check the name of each entries file to make sure that there are no entry files with the same name. I doubt if I will be able to make a change like that in the next release. That is a change that would go into v2.0. Because I allready plan on making that type of change in 2.0. But v2.0 is not even in development as of yet.

Basically if you've found an addon that was made like this then you need to report it to the addon creator and have them fix the issue. Entries.ini is only for updatepacks and should never be placed inside of an addon.
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

biatche
I can't read
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:49 am

Post by biatche » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:39 am

oh yeah, so far the only one in my list that got entries.ini is Runtime-Addon.CAB

which is an updated version of kel's runtime addon.

Post Reply