What does /integrate do for me that manually configuring svcpack.inf dosn't?

I thought the idea of /integrate was to directly copy each update into the i386 folder, but instead all it seems to do is create a CAT file in svcpack and copy every hotfix into svcpack and it updates dosnet and svcpack.inf automatically.

Thanks.

-Rowan

for me /integrate has a huge disavantage : is used for change/add/remove/link the NEW files before installing , so we will have there a modified kit of XP.

but next month , M$ remove/replace some hotfixes , so we will have a bad kit

so we need to remake the kit from the original one .

with svcpack.inf , the files are INSTALLING during the installation over the original kit , so is to easy to maintain the list into svcpack.inf by adding/removing hotfixes there . this is my way .

I'm with you oneless.

People that use the svcpack.inf method know exactly which patches are applicable for their Windows setup.

People that use the /integrate method, just keep adding patches when they are released.

with svcpack.inf , the files are INSTALLING during the installation over the original kit , so is to easy to maintain the list into svcpack.inf by adding/removing hotfixes there . this is my way .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

/integrate on hotfixes basically does nothing more than adding them to svcpack.inf so that they're executed during setup.

practically they are replacing (call it "messing up" if you want ) some files in i386/AMD64 and adding a bunch of cat-files and that is the problem with /integrate.

Oneless, I'm with you too.

I use the svpack.inf method.

/integrate on hotfixes basically does nothing more than adding them to svcpack.inf .....

@eirogge probably you are right . i doesnt study the integrate method

but the name said to me that this method alterate the original kit .

installing the hotfixes during setup or before that , the kit remain different

from original .

am i right here ? because if not , i must reconsider this method .

maybe just for a test .

the problem is for me when you want to remove an out of date already integrated

hotfix , because you must restart all work from original kit .

svcpack.inf method... all the way. I have had no good luck with the /integrate method. Especially after applying Driver packs... for some reason for me the /integrate method stops working all together then???

the problem is for me when you want to remove an out of date already integrated

hotfix , because you must restart all work from original kit .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

theoretically not as you just need to replace the hotfix file in the .\i386\svcpack - folder.

the name is a false friend here as it does not work the same way it does on service packs. sorrowly.

practically there is the problem (or can lead to a problem) i mentioned above, that there in fact are hotfixes that replace some files.

anyway, with /integrate on hotfixes the source is not up2date, but the installation will be.

/integrate has no real advantage over manually adding them to svcpack.inf except that /integrate also replaces the affected file(s) in i386 with uncompressed hotfixed versions. I'm really not a fan

My vote!

I manually integrate them ... and use SVCPACK.INF ...

/integrate is faster than manual process, and more reliable (no typo errors, normally...).

A good example is "Windows 2000 SP4 Update Rollup 1" which is a cumulative patch that contains 49 hotfixes: despite some few changes that must be manually made in svcpack.inf (erroneous subdirectory entries...), the /integrate option is really time-saving.

(Remark: /integrate is not available for old hotfixes. )

Can't the two methods be combined? For example, a base disc created with the Integrate method (using that wonderful MSFN batch file found in the Unattend Guide) that is supplemented with manual additions in conjunction with QCHAIN? I have been doing it this way for some time now with no apparent ill effect. When the dreaded KB890830 is released, I just download/rename and drop it in SVCPACK. Replacement hotfixes should similarly replace any files already integrated.

If using /integrate, does it help to reduce the setup's size?

Can't the two methods be combined? For example, a base disc created with the Integrate method (using that wonderful MSFN batch file found in the Unattend Guide) that is supplemented with manual additions in conjunction with QCHAIN?

Yes but why still use qchain?

If using /integrate, does it help to reduce the setup's size?

Nope, it actually increases it.