royalbox

NOTE: There is now a better script by greenmachine which you can find here and I recommend you use that. Thanks to those who helped me with it and to those who gave me feedback. ============ Hello all, I've updated my hotfix slipstream script originally posted here. As you know, webmedic improved my original script by adding support for the type 2 (and 3?) hotfixes and also has logging (which mine does not). I've completely re-written this from scratch. I'm using compress.exe v5.0.2134.1 and newer versions like in the 2003 reskit won't work with it as it is. I've put instructions in the download. If you want to give it a go then I'd appreciate feedback regarding any problems or improvements. All I ask is that you post them here rather than start a new thread with an improved version of it. A lot of time and effort went into it. I'd like to work together to improve it and I'll give you credit for any help. Many thanks. (link removed)

@Sunil I posted a script to intergrate hotfixes some time ago here (page 3 onwards). It works on the hotfixes with the 'plain' white icon. This has now become known as webmedics hotfix script if you want to search for it. Why webmedics script? Well, he edited it by adding support for the other type of hotfixes with the picture icon. He put it in a new topic and made a download of it. I've improved my original quite a bit since but want to be very sure about the type 2 and 3 hotfixes that need to be done slightly differently before posting it. Anyway, here's the link to the microsoft guide I used. I hope it helps.

Your's is tidy, you wait untill you see my latest! if I leave it for an hour or two and come back I look at it and haven't got a clue what it's about. The trouble is I tend to do it all in lowercase and it all blends in. I've got my new script working well with hotfix type 1 and it doesn't overwrite newer files with old when you do them all at once like my original script did because I'm using xcopy like you do. I did a directory compare again with all at once and one at a time to make sure. I'm Still having a problem with hotfix type 2. Out of the one's you listed only two of those I have -- unless the names are different. Minus the java, mdac and others you mentioned I'm left with IE and OE patches. Maybe with different systems you get different updates. I only have xp home oem with sp1 (2002) already slipsteamed. I'm left with: q330994.exe q822925.exe And that's it, apart form hu1002_per.exe help update which is not critical. One other thing that concerns me is updating sp1. I added that to my original and posted it in that other thread because someone asked for it, but there is a sp1.cat file in i386, so what happens if you update a file in sp1.cab? Surely the version will no longer match with that in .cat file. I don't know a lot about .cat files but as I understand it, the file versions are in there. Actually, I did a compare after adding all the type 1 hotfixes and 5 files were updated in there. Anyway, I've gone on long enough for now.

Thanks GreenMachine. RHSM? I like it! That's interesting what you say about the hotfixes not running in chronological order with the kb onces running first. I did read something at microsoft's site about qchain and how it's now incorporated into xp hotfixes, but some older hotfixes can still cause a 'wrong file version' problem and they suggested to still use qchain. I've been using that but is there still a problem if you install in the wrong order? Because of the way the svcpack.inf is created, the hotfixes are obviously entered in alphabeticle (sorry, I haven't got a spell checkert!) order. I noticed on webmedic's script that he renamed the files using ????????.exe and I tried that out on it's own in a test.cmd thing but I had problems with one hotfix I tried it on. I tried q330994.exe that you just mentioned, and it wouldn't have any of it because the file name only had seven characters. In the end I used xcopy to copy and rename then to the short file name with the /n switch. It doesn't look so pretty having q12345~1.exe but I won't be spending much time looking at them! Do you see any problem with this? Just to be different, instead of using PREPDIR I used %~dp0 which gives the full path. So the full path to 'myfolder' is "%~dp0myfolder" which looks horrible but I used it throughout just in case. I agree with you about leaving the hotfixes themelves in. That's the way microsoft suggest and there must be a reason. As for type 2 hotfixes, I think I'll have to have a good look at them. The one I tried had a dummy.cat a q123456_me.cat (or something like it) and a few other things that I don't know whether are junk of not. I know the files won't hurt if they're compressed and left in i386 but it would be nice to know for sure. Anyway, I'll keep at it.

Hello again green machine, I had a good look at your script and noticed you xcopy the files after each is expanded using the /d switch which I thought was a good idea, so you can do all hotfixes at once without fear of overwriting new files with old. Actually, I've been writing a script from scratch and have used your xcopy idea. I've changed it quite a bit from my original -- moved things around and got rid of some redundant stuff, I didn't use the %PREPDIR% variable I got full path another way. I'll post it when finished. I'm a bit concerned about 'hotfix type 2' as it's become known. There's no official guide from microsoft about slipstreaming these as far as I know, is everyone sure that these are being installed properly? what problems are outstanding. thanks.

I don't know whether this has been mentioned or sorted out as there are many pages of this thread to check. As I said when I posted the script originally in the other thread, you should do one hotfix at a time, or else you should be absolutely sure that the same file doesn't exist in 2 or more hotfixes or you could get an older version of the file. I tested this myself with a bunch of hotfixes doing one at a time, then all at once and using directory compare to compare the two folders. One file was older in the 'all at once' folder. Only one but that could be enough to cause errors.

OK webmedic I think anyone would have felt the same if they'd spent a lot of time on something. I tried to download your new version yesterday but I don't have the 7z thing at the moment. Thanks I'll check the pm thing then once I've found out where the link is!

@GreenMachine Thanks, yes I read your post. I did post after it and said I would try your modfied script. Still haven't had a chance as I'm giving the computer a bit of a clear out at the moment, you know how these things get! is that called "massaging my ego"? That's good I could get used to that! And there's me thinking I was imune to ego problems. Thanks again.

Gosh! Who'd have thought my original script and guide would have become so popular! "What are you talking about royalbox, who the hell are you?" I hear you say. Well I must apologize to webmedic here as I did say to him in another thread that I didn't want any credit, but I've just read this very long topic and downloaded the zip on page one and thought to myself: "sod it!" If no-one else will give me credit them I'm going to do it myself. I posted in THIS TOPIC about a script I'd made that automates the process of adding hotfixes. I asked for people to improve it and post back. I've been away for a while but had that topc book-marked to see if anyone had improved it and was dissapointed that they hadn't. I posted yesterday asking if anyone had managed to improve it and webmedic pointed me here! It's great to see that people are interested in it and are improving it but I'm afraid that the ego I didn't think I had has gotten the better of me and I'm posting the original topic so you can see the code and know where it originated. "So what?" You say. Well, it won't bother anyone else but I wished this had continued on that same thread rather than starting a new one and accepting all praise for it. Just wanted to get that off my chest. I know webmedic added support for the 'other' hotfixes with the picture icon which was good. Anyway, it's good to see that webmedic and others are working hard on it and I look forward to trying these improvements myself. I don't know why I needed to post this, but for some reason, I really did! No offence to anyone carry on the good work.

Thanks both I look forward to reading through to see what you've done and trying these out. I see that it's still necessary to use cabarc and compress, I couldn't get either to do all that's needed on their own either. Thanls again.

@webmedic Can you point me to the thread it's in or is there a download? I'd like to see it as I was hoping someone would improve it. I'm not after credit, It would just be nice to see how it's been bettered and to use it myself. Thanks.

I haven't been around here for ages. Did anyone improve on my hotfix integration script? I was hoping someone would refine it and post it here. I've done a quick search through the forum but couldn't find anything.

Where from? Not here it isn't anyway.

..

..

Thanks for all the replies on this. I particually liked this one: Seriously though, it's not all that clearly explained by microsoft. It looked to me like I should have a separate file called dahotfix.exe as well as the hotfix file. But you've explained that it's part of the hotfix file. Anyway, as long as it works that's what matters. Thanks again all.

From microsoft: Q823718_MDAC_SecurityPatch /C:"dahotfix.exe /q /n" /q ???I can't make head nor tail of that one I'm afraid. Can anyone explain that?

@Mike500 Ok thanks, I didn't know about that.

Yes, this is something that bugs me. When microsoft release new patches I wish they'd say there and then on the update site or update catalog which patches -- if any -- the new one replaces. That link you posted Mike500 does this but I can't really make the article out. Is it just for one patch?

Just one more thing: 296861

From microsoft about the wrong file version geting installed when chaining hotfixes. If you manage to follow that lot you'll notice it talks about the 'file being in use'. Well surely if you add the hotfixes during xp install using the %oem% method then they are installed before even explorer is started so there are no programs using the files -- I wouldn't have thought so anyway. But it does suggest using an updated qchain for some older hotfixes even xp ones so I'd say get that and use it anyway as it won't hurt (unless ms post an article in 6 months time saying 'there was a problem with the updated qchain which made sure only the oldest files were installed' or something).Gosh, this is a long post, sorry everyone.

Well, who knows. Everything you read is contradictory. Look at this snipet from the article I posted above. Notice the 'order' they are in?

I don't think it matters what order you install them with xp. I read somewhere that qchain is not necessary in xp as it sorts the problem of older files replacing newer ones itself -- or the hotfixes do. EDIT: Actually, better read this from microsoft.

There is also a -u switch which is described as 'unattended mode'. Try doing a command q123456.exe /? to see the switches for the hotfixes as no -m is shown on xp hotfixes but there is a -n. this may help... or it may not. EDIT: Actually, I'm conviced the problem is the -m switch. In this MS article it says:

The xp driver for my cheap graphics card has no gamma control which I need or everything is too dark. I have to use an older win2000 driver. I have "OemPnPDriversPath=" set up to point to the driver but it doesn't install because the xp one is considered newer. Driver signing policy is not the problem here but thanks all the same.