SVCPACK.INF Use

[Ascii2]

The MSFN.org guide to use SVCPACK.INF at http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/view/web/24/ .

The method described in the MSFN.org article differs greatly from the result of using "/integrate" parameter with newer update patches and hotfixes.

I first will start with an example of SVCPACK.INF that may be created by integrating patches using "/integrate" switch.

The following is the contents of a Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4 SVCPACK.INF for which some patches were integrated into an installation source using the "/integrate" switch:

[CatalogHeader]

[Version]
BuildNumber=2195
MinorVersion=0
MajorVersion=5
Signature="$WINDOWS NT$"
[SetupData]
CatalogSubDir="\I386\svcpack"
[SetupHotfixesToRun]
KB909520.exe /q /n /z
KB893803v2.exe /q /n /z
KB908506.exe /q /n /z
KB896423.exe /q /n /z
KB916281-IE501SP4-20060519.173353.exe /q /n /z
KB914389.exe /q /n /z
KB918439-IE6SP1-20060530.145346.exe /q /n /z
KB914388.exe /q /n /z
KB917344.exe /q /n /z
KB917953.exe /q /n /z
KB913580.exe /q /n /z
KB917736.exe /q /n /z
KB917537.exe /q /n /z
KB911564.exe /q /n /z
KB908519.exe /q /n /z
KB900725.exe /q /n /z
KB905749.exe /q /n /z
KB901017.exe /q /n /z
KB905414.exe /q /n /z
KB905495-IE6SP1-20050805.184113.exe /q /n /z
KB893756.exe /q /n /z
KB901214.exe /q /n /z
KB899587.exe /q /n /z
KB890046.exe /q /n /z
KB896422.exe /q /n /z
Update Rollup 1.exe /q /n /z
[ProductCatalogsToInstall]
basecsp.cat
KB893803v2_w2k.cat
KB908506.cat
KB896423.cat
KB916281-IE501SP4-20060519.173353.cat
KB914389.cat
KB918439-IE6SP1-20060530.145346.cat
KB914388.cat
KB917344.cat
KB917953.cat
KB913580.cat
KB917736.cat
KB917537.cat
KB911564.cat
KB908519.cat
KB900725.cat
KB905749.cat
KB901017.cat
KB905414.cat
KB905495-IE6SP1-20050805.184113.cat
KB893756.cat
KB901214.cat
KB899587.cat
KB890046.cat
KB896422.cat
sp5.cat

The order of filenames in SVCPACK.INF when the "/integrate" switch is used does not seem to be sorted alphanumeric or by order patches were integrated into the install. I not that the MSFN.org guide states, "All the hotfixes you have downloaded, renamed and copied to the SVCPACK folder should be added under this section in svcpack.inf in numerical order".

Does the order of SVCPACK.INF entries really matter?

I noticed that most the integrated patches were renamed to the 8.3 format. However, there seems to be exceptions. Patches beginning "IE5.01sp" were renamed to much longer filenames. Update Rollup 1 of Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 ("Windows2000-KB891861-v2-x86-ENU.EXE") was renamed to "Update Rollup 1.exe" (note the spaces in the name).

Should there be a problem with using filenames not adhering to the 8.3 format?

The MSFN.org guide conveys that Windows Media Player 9 and Windows Media Player 10 may be installed from SVCPACK.INF by including its filename without any switches.

Why can SVCPACK.INF have installed Windows Media Player 9/10 without the use of switches, while other programs like (update patches) require switches?

When the "/integrate" switch is used, *.cat files are placed in directory "svcpack" and their filenames are included in heading "[ProductCatalogsToInstall]" in SVCPACK.INF.

What is the significance of the *.cat files with respect to SVCPACK.inf?

Edited September 29, 2008 by Ascii2

[DarkShadows]

The method described in the MSFN.org article differs greatly from the result of using "/integrate" parameter with newer update patches and hotfixes.

When you use the /INTEGRATE switch to integrate an update, the svcpack.inf resulting entries will most always look like: "KBnnnnnn.exe /q /n /z". However, there are many other switches available to such updates (we call these Type I updates). A few times, using the /INTEGRATE switch will add some of these. Personally, I just use the /INTEGRATE switch, and the resulting switches for nearly all svcpack.inf entries.

The order of filenames in SVCPACK.INF when the "/integrate" switch is used does not seem to be sorted alphanumeric or by order patches were integrated into the install. I not that the MSFN.org guide states, "All the hotfixes you have downloaded, renamed and copied to the SVCPACK folder should be added under this section in svcpack.inf in numerical order".

Does the order of SVCPACK.INF entries really matter?

I have noticed that the order listed in svcpack.inf is usually the reverse order in which the updates were integrated. Generally, it does not matter to each update in which order they are installed. However, sometimes it does matter from a system-state perspective. See this thread for more information. Although most updates now include its logic, adding QChain.exe to your SVCPACK folder and an entry to svcpack.inf is still a good idea.

Should there be a problem with using filenames not adhering to the 8.3 format?

Not at all

The MSFN.org guide conveys that Windows Media Player 9 and Windows Media Player 10 may be installed from SVCPACK.INF by including its filename without any switches. Why can SVCPACK.INF have installed Windows Media Player 9/10 without the use of switches, while other programs like (update patches) require switches?

The guide provides links to two repackaged, silent, switchless, installers. Someone created those packages.

When the "/integrate" switch is used, *.cat files are placed in directory "svcpack" and their filenames are included in heading "[ProductCatalogsToInstall]" in SVCPACK.INF. What is the significance of the *.cat files with respect to SVCPACK.inf?

My understanding is that the .cat files are digitally signed by Microsoft and provide Windows with new knowledge of authorized system (and device driver) files. Basically, they tell Windows: "these new files are safe and authorized to use as part of the operating system".

[Ascii2]

The order of filenames in SVCPACK.INF when the "/integrate" switch is used does not seem to be sorted alphanumeric or by order patches were integrated into the install. I not that the MSFN.org guide states, "All the hotfixes you have downloaded, renamed and copied to the SVCPACK folder should be added under this section in svcpack.inf in numerical order".

Does the order of SVCPACK.INF entries really matter?

I have noticed that the order listed in svcpack.inf is usually the reverse order in which the updates were integrated. Generally, it does not matter to each update in which order they are installed.

Upon inspection of the batch file used to integrate and create the contents of the above posted SVCPACK.INF file, the order did seem to be in reverse order of integration with a single exception: the KB32004 patch ("Windows2000-KB832004-x86-ENU.EXE"). After querying the update patch for its command line parameters, I noticed that the patch does not support the "/integrate" argument (all other usual parameters are supported). Apparently, the KB32004 patch does not integrate.

Should there be a problem with using filenames not adhering to the 8.3 format?

Not at all

I have noticed that Microsoft Knowledge Base article that refer to editing manually SVCPACK.INF to use the 8.3 format; however, Microsoft Corporation does not seem to state why should it be done. It is also odd that many newer patches (within the past four years) integrated into an installation source do not adhere to the 8.3 naming format, while most do.

The MSFN.org guide conveys that Windows Media Player 9 and Windows Media Player 10 may be installed from SVCPACK.INF by including its filename without any switches. Why can SVCPACK.INF have installed Windows Media Player 9/10 without the use of switches, while other programs like (update patches) require switches?

The guide provides links to two repackaged, silent, switchless, installers. Someone created those packages.

I had downloaded the Windows Media Player 9 setup from the guide page and ran it on my Desktop. The file ran the attended Windows Media Player 9 setup. The file was also invokable using the normal Windows Media Player 9 setup switches. The installer did not appear to be silent nor switchless.

[Ascii2]

I have noticed that the order listed in svcpack.inf is usually the reverse order in which the updates were integrated.

So, what order does Windows setup install that fixes?

[DarkShadows]

In the order listed in svcpack.inf (which as we have pointed out is not the order in which you integrate them).

[Ascii2]

Thanks. That is what I thought.