Home > Archive > Visual Basic > April 2006 > P+D Wizard reports missing files
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
P+D Wizard reports missing files
|
|
|
| I'm trying to create a setup package with the very horrible Package and
Deployment Wizard (shudder...)
After telling the thing where I want the package to be assembled, it starts
to whinge at me, saying the following files are needed but cannot be found.
AutMgr32.exe
AutPrx32.dll
RACMgr32.exe
I don't understand why the wizard gives me the option of proceeding without
these files - surely there's no point in continuing if they're needed but not
present? (The Help topic is not much help.)
What is the purpose of the listed files? Where can I get copies of them?
Why didn't my installation of VB include them?
Andy
| |
|
|
"Andy" <andrewjellis@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
news:86C7B4B0-0955-40AC-AA05-CC781A6A0B9A@microsoft.com...
> I'm trying to create a setup package with the very horrible Package and
> Deployment Wizard (shudder...)
> After telling the thing where I want the package to be assembled, it
starts
> to whinge at me, saying the following files are needed but cannot be
found.
> AutMgr32.exe
> AutPrx32.dll
> RACMgr32.exe
> I don't understand why the wizard gives me the option of proceeding
without
> these files - surely there's no point in continuing if they're needed but
not
> present? (The Help topic is not much help.)
> What is the purpose of the listed files? Where can I get copies of them?
> Why didn't my installation of VB include them?
>
> Andy
Several comments.
1) Stop whinning about the P&D. While it is growing a bit long in tooth for
installing on the latest Windows boxes, it works just fine for most
applications and you can learn a lot if you stop and study what it's doing.
If it upsets you that much use something else - Inno comes to mind.
2) However, selecting another tool will not help in this particular case.
3) The P&D is essentially two tools - one is a dependancy utility, the other
a packaging utility.
The Dependancy tool is informing you that your application is "dependent" on
using these files. But they are "system" files (part of the VB/C++ runtime)
and shouldn't normally be included with a install package. The dependancy
checker also indicated other files that likely shouldn't be included either.
4) The packaging tool couldn't include them because, you have either hidden
'system' files or extensions, or you are blocked by WPS. Depends on your
Windows version.
5) Correct versions of these files are already installed on the target.
6) The simple expedient is to NOT include these files in your package.
7) If the target box does need them (highly unlikely) then use the MS
provided package for installing the VB runtime.
hth
-ralph
| |
| Ken Halter 2006-04-27, 6:56 pm |
| "Andy" <andrewjellis@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
news:86C7B4B0-0955-40AC-AA05-CC781A6A0B9A@microsoft.com...
> I'm trying to create a setup package with the very horrible Package and
> Deployment Wizard (shudder...)
> After telling the thing where I want the package to be assembled, it
> starts
> to whinge at me, saying the following files are needed but cannot be
> found.
> AutMgr32.exe
> AutPrx32.dll
> RACMgr32.exe
> I don't understand why the wizard gives me the option of proceeding
> without
> these files - surely there's no point in continuing if they're needed but
> not
> present? (The Help topic is not much help.)
> What is the purpose of the listed files? Where can I get copies of them?
> Why didn't my installation of VB include them?
>
> Andy
Those files may not come with VB, the folder they "live in" may not be in
the environment's path variable, etc, etc. "Something" your project is doing
or using requires them. Identifying each one is as simple as going to Google
and entering the exact name of the EXE (dll, whatever) in the search box.
Here are a few links from the search I performed.
AUTMGR32_EXE (Microsoft Remote Automation Manager for Windows NT(TM)
Operating System)
http://www.processlist.com/info/autmgr32.html
BUG: PDW Incorrectly Includes Autprx32.dll for DCOM Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=190778
RACMGR32_EXE (Remote Automation Connection Manager)
http://www.processlist.com/info/racmgr32.html
You probably already know this but.... just because something shows in the
references/components dialogs doesn't mean it's ok to use/distribute
(nothing really to do with this specific question but, just in case <g> )
--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - Please keep all discussions in the groups..
DLL Hell problems? Try ComGuard - http://www.vbsight.com/ComGuard.htm
| |
|
|
"Ken Halter" <Ken_Halter@Use_Sparingly_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uNcumAhaGHA.4784@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Andy" <andrewjellis@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:86C7B4B0-0955-40AC-AA05-CC781A6A0B9A@microsoft.com...
but[color=darkred]
them?[color=darkred]
>
> Those files may not come with VB, the folder they "live in" may not be in
> the environment's path variable, etc, etc. "Something" your project is
doing
> or using requires them. Identifying each one is as simple as going to
Google
> and entering the exact name of the EXE (dll, whatever) in the search box.
>
> Here are a few links from the search I performed.
>
> AUTMGR32_EXE (Microsoft Remote Automation Manager for Windows NT(TM)
> Operating System)
> http://www.processlist.com/info/autmgr32.html
>
> BUG: PDW Incorrectly Includes Autprx32.dll for DCOM Server
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=190778
>
> RACMGR32_EXE (Remote Automation Connection Manager)
> http://www.processlist.com/info/racmgr32.html
>
> You probably already know this but.... just because something shows in the
> references/components dialogs doesn't mean it's ok to use/distribute
> (nothing really to do with this specific question but, just in case <g> )
>
> --
> Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - Please keep all discussions in the groups..
> DLL Hell problems? Try ComGuard - http://www.vbsight.com/ComGuard.htm
>
>
Also I was wrong. (Imagine that?)
"Remote Automation" is NOT guaranteed to be included on 'virgin' newer
Windows platforms. As it predates DCOM and is found on every box I when I
needed to use Remote Automation on - I just assumed it was - with all the
consequences that term entails. <g>
It seems to be on all the boxes available to me at the moment - but I'll be
d*mn if I know where they come from. Apparently they must be included in
many installs and initial setups, but not officially listed as part of any
package outside of VB4 Pro and VS6 Enterprise. As RA was essentially
deprecated in favor of DCOM about 10+ years ago, I am not surprised.
It is very possible that the OP doesn't have them, or they aren't
registered, on the machine he is attempting to build a package on if he has
not installed VS6 Pro or Enterprise. (But then again that doesn't make sense
as the project would not have compiled if they weren't there? And doesn't
the P&D only come with Pro/Ent?)
I just whipped up a little RA project and the package built fine. Must be
something else going on.
Those three files are legal to distribute.
-ralph
| |
| Jim Carlock 2006-04-27, 6:56 pm |
| Hi Ralph,
"Ralph" <nt_consulting64@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1) Stop whinning about the P&D.
<g> Okay, time for the good guy bad guy newsgroup moderator
act.
Sometimes statements reveal things about your own conditions.
For instance, when George Bush mentions the word "terrorist", it
indicates that he himself knows something about terrorists that the
rest of the world doesn't know, including the terrorists themselves.
He works with terrorists?
His grandfather, Prescott Bush, worked with Adolph Hitler. And
perhaps it's a one upmanship game between George, Bill and
the dead Prescott Bush. "The first smeller is the guilty feller?"
So maybe you whine about things yourself? I don't know. But if
so, perhaps it helps to know that your statements reveal whining.
Sometimes statements by people reveal truths about their own
conditions. It's something that can be corrected and knowledge
plays a grande role in helping identify the problem.
Hope I offended noone (including George Bush, Bill Clinton
and especially the FBI agents that work for George, Bill and
Osama (see "Kevin Ives" and "Gail Spiro")).
> 2) However, selecting another tool will not help in this particular
> case.
What's the point here? You didn't provide anything helpful on
enumeration number (2).
Writing ends up as a form of art. Communication as well. Some
knowledges help when writing about when to enumerate and to
write in paragraph clauses. Enumerations help when properly
applied. You failed to enumerate anything here and going through
the rest of the message confirms this. In other words, everything
you posted reads better as normal paragraph clauses rather than
an enumeration.
Enumeration number (2) represents a supposition on your part.
You effectively stated, take note of the "implied you"...
> However, for you, selecting another tool will not help in this
> particular case.
How could you really know that? The statement reads better
as a question.
> 3) The P&D is essentially two tools - one is a dependancy utility,
> the other a packaging utility.
>
> The Dependancy tool is informing you that your application is
> "dependent" on using these files.
I say, "Okay!", to those declarations.
> But they are "system" files (part of the VB/C++ runtime) and
> shouldn't normally be included with a install package.
I disagree. Not ALL operating systems come with the runtime
packages, so instead I propose that the "updated runtimes" get
provided with the package (in other words, if you built the app
with SP5 runtime, include only the SP5 runtime rather than the
SP5 runtime on top of the VB6 runtime, but NOTE, be aware
that this might present an issue if the enduser has SP6 runtime
installed).
> The dependancy checker also indicated other files that likely
> shouldn't be included either.
Such as? Here you stated your opinion, the word "likely"
announces that this represents your opinion. Stick with the
facts.
> 4) The packaging tool couldn't include them because, you
> have either hidden 'system' files or extensions, or you are
> blocked by WPS. Depends on your Windows version.
Can you tell me what WPS provides, performs, involves? I'm
drawing a blank right at the moment, but perhaps you mean,
SFC (System File Checker, sfc.exe on Windows 2K and later)
or WFP (Windows File Protection, which keeps a list of items
windows protects from wrongful updates inside a file known
as sfcfiles.dll)?
NOTE: You might possibly communicating with a newby who
fails to know what SFC or WFP is. I failed to identify /your/
"WPS". The best I came up with involves:
:: Windows Power Service
:: WPS (Corel file [Windows Post Script?])
> 5) Correct versions of these files are already installed on the
> target.
That enumeration brings up a very powerful word. I dislike
the word. I'm going to rewrite your statement with the "implied
assumption"...
> "I a$$ume" correct files of these files are already installed
> on the target.
That fails to offer anything useful to the op. Avoid "a$$uming"
things on the part of others. Either you know what's going on
or you don't. Do not "a$$ume" anything. Basically, avoid all
"implied a$$umtioms".
The proper time to "a$$ume" anything, involves explicitly
stating specific unknown conditions in order to present a
valid argument.
> 6) The simple expedient is to NOT include these files in
> your package.
Huhh? <g>
> 7) If the target box does need them (highly unlikely) then
> use the MS provided package for installing the VB runtime.
There's an "implied a$$umption" again. Even though you
specifically qualified the statemeny with an "If ...", you also
suggested (wrongly) by offering an opinion ("highly unlikely").
In effect, YOUR opinion ("highly unlikely") fails to validate
anything in the rest of the post. Avoid employing opinions
when trying to help others. Stick to the facts.
Good luck, Ralph. Forgive me for correcting your "opinions"
and your English rhetoric. This is NOT an attack on your
advice and is NOT an attack in any way, forms or means.
Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.
| |
|
|
"Jim Carlock" <anonymous@localhost> wrote in message
news:OduKX5iaGHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi Ralph,
>
> "Ralph" <nt_consulting64@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <g> Okay, time for the good guy bad guy newsgroup moderator
> act.
>
> Sometimes statements reveal things about your own conditions.
> For instance, when George Bush mentions the word "terrorist", it
> indicates that he himself knows something about terrorists that the
> rest of the world doesn't know, including the terrorists themselves.
> He works with terrorists?
>
> His grandfather, Prescott Bush, worked with Adolph Hitler. And
> perhaps it's a one upmanship game between George, Bill and
> the dead Prescott Bush. "The first smeller is the guilty feller?"
>
> So maybe you whine about things yourself? I don't know. But if
> so, perhaps it helps to know that your statements reveal whining.
> Sometimes statements by people reveal truths about their own
> conditions. It's something that can be corrected and knowledge
> plays a grande role in helping identify the problem.
>
> Hope I offended noone (including George Bush, Bill Clinton
> and especially the FBI agents that work for George, Bill and
> Osama (see "Kevin Ives" and "Gail Spiro")).
>
>
> What's the point here? You didn't provide anything helpful on
> enumeration number (2).
>
> Writing ends up as a form of art. Communication as well. Some
> knowledges help when writing about when to enumerate and to
> write in paragraph clauses. Enumerations help when properly
> applied. You failed to enumerate anything here and going through
> the rest of the message confirms this. In other words, everything
> you posted reads better as normal paragraph clauses rather than
> an enumeration.
>
> Enumeration number (2) represents a supposition on your part.
> You effectively stated, take note of the "implied you"...
>
>
> How could you really know that? The statement reads better
> as a question.
>
>
> I say, "Okay!", to those declarations.
>
>
> I disagree. Not ALL operating systems come with the runtime
> packages, so instead I propose that the "updated runtimes" get
> provided with the package (in other words, if you built the app
> with SP5 runtime, include only the SP5 runtime rather than the
> SP5 runtime on top of the VB6 runtime, but NOTE, be aware
> that this might present an issue if the enduser has SP6 runtime
> installed).
>
>
> Such as? Here you stated your opinion, the word "likely"
> announces that this represents your opinion. Stick with the
> facts.
>
>
> Can you tell me what WPS provides, performs, involves? I'm
> drawing a blank right at the moment, but perhaps you mean,
> SFC (System File Checker, sfc.exe on Windows 2K and later)
> or WFP (Windows File Protection, which keeps a list of items
> windows protects from wrongful updates inside a file known
> as sfcfiles.dll)?
>
> NOTE: You might possibly communicating with a newby who
> fails to know what SFC or WFP is. I failed to identify /your/
> "WPS". The best I came up with involves:
> :: Windows Power Service
> :: WPS (Corel file [Windows Post Script?])
>
>
> That enumeration brings up a very powerful word. I dislike
> the word. I'm going to rewrite your statement with the "implied
> assumption"...
>
>
> That fails to offer anything useful to the op. Avoid "a$$uming"
> things on the part of others. Either you know what's going on
> or you don't. Do not "a$$ume" anything. Basically, avoid all
> "implied a$$umtioms".
>
> The proper time to "a$$ume" anything, involves explicitly
> stating specific unknown conditions in order to present a
> valid argument.
>
>
> Huhh? <g>
>
>
> There's an "implied a$$umption" again. Even though you
> specifically qualified the statemeny with an "If ...", you also
> suggested (wrongly) by offering an opinion ("highly unlikely").
> In effect, YOUR opinion ("highly unlikely") fails to validate
> anything in the rest of the post. Avoid employing opinions
> when trying to help others. Stick to the facts.
>
> Good luck, Ralph. Forgive me for correcting your "opinions"
> and your English rhetoric. This is NOT an attack on your
> advice and is NOT an attack in any way, forms or means.
>
> Jim Carlock
> Post replies to the group.
>
You are correct I was less than clear. And if you read my other post, a bit
off target as well, as I assumed the RA was included with any Windows
platform. (Exactly if it is or not is still in doubt.)
It does little to complain about a tool. I put such remarks right up there
with "VB Sucks! Now please explain why this doesn't work....".
Either figure out what it is doing or get another.
[And Kennedy's father was quite open in his admiration and support for
Adolph Hitler while the ambas or to England, and a major supporter of
Franco during the Spanish Civil War.
I have no idea what that is all about, but thought I would throw it in
anyway.]
In this case I doubted the tool itself would make any difference. I should
have said IMHO, and will certainly do so the next time. But until or unless
the OP responds with the 'fix' - my opinion stands.
It is was my belief at the time and still is (to some degree*), that the OP
will discovered that those files are already present on the target machine.
(*as I stated in another post - I'm less sure now than at 7am this morning
and would welcome additional information.)
The mystery is how the OP could have compiled an app that uses the RA
manager and then not be able to build a package. On further reflection,
IMHO, the OP may have a MFC/C++ component that he references, and it is that
component which has a dependency on RA.
-ralph
| |
|
| Oh, and your suggestion for the OP was what again?
-ralph
| |
|
|
|
| Crikey! I opened a can of worms with this one...
"Ralph" wrote:
>
> "Jim Carlock" <anonymous@localhost> wrote in message
> news:OduKX5iaGHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> You are correct I was less than clear. And if you read my other post, a bit
> off target as well, as I assumed the RA was included with any Windows
> platform. (Exactly if it is or not is still in doubt.)
>
> It does little to complain about a tool. I put such remarks right up there
> with "VB Sucks! Now please explain why this doesn't work....".
>
> Either figure out what it is doing or get another.
>
> [And Kennedy's father was quite open in his admiration and support for
> Adolph Hitler while the ambasor to England, and a major supporter of
> Franco during the Spanish Civil War.
> I have no idea what that is all about, but thought I would throw it in
> anyway.]
>
> In this case I doubted the tool itself would make any difference. I should
> have said IMHO, and will certainly do so the next time. But until or unless
> the OP responds with the 'fix' - my opinion stands.
>
> It is was my belief at the time and still is (to some degree*), that the OP
> will discovered that those files are already present on the target machine.
> (*as I stated in another post - I'm less sure now than at 7am this morning
> and would welcome additional information.)
>
> The mystery is how the OP could have compiled an app that uses the RA
> manager and then not be able to build a package. On further reflection,
> IMHO, the OP may have a MFC/C++ component that he references, and it is that
> component which has a dependency on RA.
>
> -ralph
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| J French 2006-04-28, 7:56 am |
| On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:11:01 -0400, "Jim Carlock"
<anonymous@localhost> wrote:
<snip>
>His grandfather, Prescott Bush, worked with Adolph Hitler. And
>perhaps it's a one upmanship game between George, Bill and
>the dead Prescott Bush. "The first smeller is the guilty feller?"
<snip>
That is very interesting
I note that Ralph translated it into 'Joe Kennedy', who made his bucks
during Prohibition
Sometimes OT stuff is rather interesting
Ralph, read George Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia'
also, note that Franco (after a few disgusting episodes) was not that
bad an administrator during and after WWII
- the economy was run on the 'not made here' principle
- something astute programmers understand
His handover to Juan Carlos was masterly
In the UK we had our tumult in 1642
- France had its in 1789
- America in 1860
- Russia 1917
- and Spain in 1936
| |
|
|
"Andy" <andrewjellis@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
news:D5BB964B-5A39-43D4-8EBF-44A921A40813@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> Crikey! I opened a can of worms with this one...
>
> "Ralph" wrote:
>
<<snipped>>[color=darkred]
LOL!
Not really. Jim had some good points.
One of the great advantages, if not THE advantage of a newsgroup like this
one, is not that you get an answer, but that that answer is subject to
intense peer-review. There is no one (repeat NO ONE) here that hasn't at one
time got caught with their hand in the ego jar, wearing their stupidity hat,
or (as in my case) being careless.
It all works to the advantage of the community at large.
So, how goes it? What is the status of your particular problem?
-ralph
| |
| Ken Halter 2006-04-28, 6:56 pm |
| "J French" <erewhon@nowhere.uk> wrote in message
news:4451f56a.95314099@news.btopenworld.com...
>
> I note that Ralph translated it into 'Joe Kennedy', who made his bucks
> during Prohibition
>
.....and his "give me taxes or give me death" family has been hiding their
wealth offshore, to avoid the taxes they so desperately need for the good of
the country, since the end of prohibition..... and, with that, I'm outta
here. Nothing gets my blood boiling faster than politics. Just say no.
--
Ken Halter - MS-MVP-VB - Please keep all discussions in the groups..
DLL Hell problems? Try ComGuard - http://www.vbsight.com/ComGuard.htm
| |
| Jim Carlock 2006-04-29, 6:56 pm |
| "Andy" <andrewjellis@hotmailnospam.com> wrote:
> Crikey! I opened a can of worms with this one...
"Ralph" <nt_consulting64@yahoo.com> wrote:
> LOL!
>
> Not really. Jim had some good points.
Thanks, Ralph.
Maybe Andy can answer a question for me. I'm having troubles
with my Hotmail account whereby Hotmail doesn't seem to filter
things correctly any longer, meaning I put the account into a
STRICT filtering mode and I end up getting no email at all. That
seemed to have started somewhere around the first of this year.
By the way it's the free hotmail account, not a paid account.
Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.
--
"Raleigh Swimming Pool Builders"
http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/
|
|
|
|
|