1

I inherited a Basic MSI InstallShield ISM to install an application that has a mixture of .Net and COM dll's. The existing ISM currently uses a number of custom dialogs to run the setup workflow.

A new requirement we have is support for response files for silent installation. From what I understand this isn't possible with Basic MSI.

One option I've considered is to convert this to Install Script and re-build the installer UI. I'm exploring the difficulty of that now. Is this a good approach?

What other options are available?

JB.
  • 83
  • 1
  • 6
  • Silent install is a built-in feature for all Basic MSI setups. [How to install silently](https://stackoverflow.com/a/25230485/129130). Installscript MSI is an undesired project type because of a few very serious known (and unfixed) bugs. Installscript MSI files may require resonse files for silent install (I haven't used one in ages - they are unreliable). Never convert a Basic MSI file to Installscript MSI! It is, however, a good idea to convert Installscript MSI files to a proper Basic MSI file. This will improve reliability for all end users (maybe you just have the terminology mixed up). – Stein Åsmul Aug 09 '17 at 23:14

2 Answers2

3

Instead of a response file why not use a response transform. The MSI UI settings usually translate to some properties being set to a certain value. You can add those properties to a transform and use it during the silent installation for configuration.

Here you can find an example. It is not exactly what you need, but it is a starting point:

Ciprian
  • 3,533
  • 1
  • 18
  • 22
  • I am finding that the custom actions in the project are causing failures; even when I provide the parameters either via command line or via a response transform. – JB. Jan 18 '12 at 20:58
  • Create an install log to isolate the custom action that fails. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7126077/create-an-msi-log-file – Ciprian Jan 19 '12 at 06:31
  • ok - i had been looking at the default logs, though they're not the easiest things to understand. i'll try a verbose log. thanks. – JB. Jan 19 '12 at 13:54
0

Response files is the technique associated with InstallScript projects. It has no place in an MSI silent installation story. The MSI equivilant of a response file is an advertised installation and then run the installer from the advertisement. But that's seldom used in the real world.

Christopher Painter
  • 54,556
  • 6
  • 63
  • 100
  • sounds like the requirement for response files is prescriptive. i suppose what we're trying to get at is a silent installation that can follow some setup configuration so that a central IT user can push out an installation to many users that may not be the vanilla "just hit next" installation. – JB. Jan 17 '12 at 19:01
  • @JB MSIs are usually used by IT to push the installs, it could be done through Group Policy, Active Directory. If one needs to customize the installation, it is possible to set properties on the command line when starting silent installation or to apply a transform to set these properties. This is an advantage of MSI: it can be customized in a standard way. – Alexey Ivanov Jan 18 '12 at 11:39
  • Chris, don't they use response files with Installscript MSI installs? I am allergic to the project type, I **never** use them since they are so buggy and unreliable, but as far as I recall a response file is necessary for a proper Installscript silent install? – Stein Åsmul Aug 10 '17 at 00:09
  • Yes. InstallScript MSI is an unholy marriage of InstallScript driven UI sequence and MSI. Basic MSI and InstallScript CA isn't too bad but really unneeded with the prevelance of .NET/C#/DTF CAs. If you really need the advanced localized UI that InstallScript can offer then it would be better to invest in a bootstrapper UI. For InstallShield that would be suite installers. – Christopher Painter Aug 10 '17 at 00:34