Install script

I'm packaging up an app for a client. The application installs and seeds the tables and data necessary for the app but the client uses a different set of tablespaces etc. I've created a couple of application substitution items and marked these in the install as to be prompted for which it does.
However, the install process fails to replace the item with the substituted value if I use either the &NAME. or #NAME# notation.
Does anyone know if this works and if so what syntax is needed for substitution please?
Phil

Phil,
wouldn't it be easier to relocate tables and indexes at a later time?
ALTER TABLE xyz MOVE TABLESPACE tbs;
ALTER INDEX abc REBUILD TABLESPACE tbs;
I mean, i don't see why one should become crazy making unnecessarily complex installation scripts when in the end there is an alternate and relatively easy solution.
I had a look at the substitution strings prompt, but i suppose this works only for changing the values of global substitutions that will be used by the application at run time, not during the installation process.
Bye,
Flavio
http://oraclequirks.blogspot.com/search/label/Apex

Similar Messages

Install Script Error?

It's Christmas day, and I just got an IPOD Video and tried to install the software for it and ran into a whole mess of problems.
I tried to install ITunes 7 & Quicktime 7, but every time I try I get an error at the end of the installation saying something about a missing Install Script error and that i need to run "ISScript.msi" or contact support.
I have no idea what to do, and tried to find that file on microsoft.com, but the onlyint that comes up is "Virtual PC 2004" and not how to install it, but work around it.
any suggestions?

The Install script engine on this machine is older than the version required to run this setup. If available, please install the lastest version of ISScript.msi or contact your support personnel for further assistance.
okay, let's try installing a version 11, using the instructions from the following InstallShield document:
Update to the Latest InstallShield Installation Engines
is that one of any help with the error message?

"Error" in ApEx install scripts for runtime environment?

I recently installed a runtime ApEx 3.1 on a 10.2.0.1.0 database. After installing an application which uses the Database Account Credentials method for authentication I was unable to login to the application, getting an ERR-10480 message. After some research on this forum I granted ALTER USER to FLOWS_030100 which resolved the issue. So far so good.
But I was still puzzled as to why the application had worked without problems in a development environment and not in the runtime environment. It took only a few minutes to locate the problem though. In the runtime-install script "apxrtins.sql" there is a call to the "runtime_grant_revoke.sql" script which removes unnecessary DBA system privileges for a runtime environment (which is a good thing IMO). In this script there is also a REVOKE ALTER USER statement, but it seems this one is needed if your application uses the DBACCOUNT authentication method. I didn't find anything on this in the documentation.
Anyone else notice this as well? I would think this is a bug in the install-scripts but perhaps I'm missing something somewhere?

Tim,
Thanks for reporting this. In database server versions earlier than 10.2.0.3, the alter user privilege is required for the "flows" schema to support the feature you mentioned. We'll try to get this fixed in the next patch release.
Scott

Sun MC Automated Install Script failing 50% of the time

Are there a set of tips in general for the script; or perhaps tips for the contents of the boom.cfg file to help increase the percentage of successful installs?
Thanks, [email protected]

Hi Mike,
In most of the SunMC autoinstall projects I've worked on, we ended up implementing 3 slightly different install/setup config files: one for 12-25k's, one for 3800-6900s, and one for "everything else". Then we put a bit of smarts in the main install script to decide which to use. The questions for each of those groups were different enough that it made sense to break them apart.
Are you using the base es-inst/es-setup commands? es-imagetool and agent-update.bin? es-makeagent? Some notes here: http://forums.halcyoninc.com/showthread.php?t=389 . Send me an email if you need help getting things off the ground.
Regards,
[email protected]

Should/can the install script included in source=() list?

Hi,
It is a good thing that the sources needed to build a package are md5summed for integrity, but in most packages the install script is not. I was thinking why this might be - the PKGBUILD can be expected to modify the script?
So to try, in one of my packages I added the install script to the source=() list. The package builds of course just fine. Then, however, if I want to upload it to AUR, I try to make a source-only package with "makepkg --source", which brakes with something like this:
ln: creating symbolic link `/tmp/foo/srclinks.YjYgQ8XlE/foo/foo.install': File exists
This is because makepkg tries to create a 2 symbolic links with the same filename: one link for the "foo.install" in the source=() list and also for the install=() list....
Is this deliberate, or a bug? Looks more like a bug to me, but thought I better ask first....
Cheers,
Greg

shining wrote:
imrehg wrote:
It might be completely internal to the pacman but defines actions taken on the system - thus whatever is in .install has effects just like the rest of the files, maybe even more: the other files are just copied, the .install is executed.
And while it might never get installed on the system, it's internals are - how else one could define a "post_uninstall()" if it wasn't stored? Being pacman developer you know much more about this than I do, can you give a bit of info on that?
Right it is installed to pacman database, but again, it is pacman doing all that.
Fair enough.... The detail, however, that is not installed does not preempt checksumming. Eg. patches are also: 1) used for the package, 2) not installed, and 3) still in the checksum....
shining wrote:
All I'm trying to get to, is there any serious reason (technical, not philosophical) NOT to checksum the install script as well? Because I'm yet to see any valid arguments against it, and there are loads for it....
Taking your example from kernel26 :
-i $startdir/kernel26.install
-i ${pkgdir}/etc/mkinitcpio.d/${pkgname}.preset
Note that the scriptlet edited is the original one in $startdir , because that's the only place where it needs to be, from the packager pov.
While for the preset file, it needs to be copied to $pkgdir and it is edited there.
If you had a checksum for the scriptlet, it would also mean that makepkg -g output could be altered after running makepkg. Very weird..
Ok, this is indeed the case. But if you look at real packages, it seems that after the package is compiled, many times they update the PKGBUILD with the new md5sum values. Again: core/kernel26.
That .install update section in the PKGBUILD is then relegated to a "helper function" role that keep the information in sync when there's a new release, but as the PKGBUILD is distributed, it won't change anything in the .install anymore...
Thus, again, there's no real difference between the .install files and other files used as source.
shining wrote:Btw the whole scriptlet file could be created entirely from the pkgbuild build function.
Sure, and that's a great thing! I actually wondered why so many packages have separate .install when it can be done in the PKGBUILD. Thought it might be some convention, but probably just habit.... I prefer doing it in the PKGBUILD as well, whenever possible...
shining wrote:There might be ways to fix that, though I don't even see any good ones. But why bother ? You said there are loads of valid arguments to have it , but you didn't even give one !
On the other hand, I'm yet to find any of your rebuttals that are not rebutted here again...
shining wrote:What are you worried about here ? Security ? If you think adding a checksum for the install file is going to give you any security, you are badly fooling yourself. If someone is distributing a malicious pkgbuild, it can contain the md5sum of the malicious scriptlet which is shipped with it.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not complaining, but inquiring. The PKGBUILD system is awesome, and it makes me search out programs that I use but not in the repo/AUR so that I can make a new package. But also, I'm interested in the "how" and "why", and hope to improve things if possible. Now, to me it seems theres an unreasonable distinction to checksum some files needed for a package but not all of them. And thus I set out to ask the elders here on the Forum to see whether someone can shed light on the reasons of the current state. Not trying to piss of anybody, but being interested.
Of course the md5sum is not security, it's a help, nothing more.
As an example: some time ago, there was a package in the community (thus managed by TUs) that had an update. I wanted to check out something in the package, got the PKGBUILD and tried to make it myself - md5sum says that the sources are incorrect.... Obviously something must have gone very bad, because the md5sum field was updated according to the SVN, the package is available on pacman thus it had to build, and the sources used in the package have not been changed for a while so that cannot be a problem....
I've got a package from a trusted source and it is broken, the md5sum told me. So the breakage can be the very same way in the install script, why is the md5sum not allowed to tell me that?
shining wrote:The only security for pkgbuilds is yourself. When you get one from a strange place, you MUST read the pkgbuild/install files.
Of course, never argued against it. But there are different layers of verbosity....
Anyway....

Using subsitiutions in the install scripts

This should be pretty obvious, but I can't find the answer in the documentation.
Using Apex 3.1.2, in the Shared Objects, I've created a substitution named "TABLESPACE". The application uses a set of tables, the install should create these tables, and DBA have funny ideas about where these tables should be created, so I'd like to offer the option of having the install process ask for and use the TABLESPACE.
So I create an install script called "create tables". The script text has the following:
CREATE TABLE table1 (ID NUMBER, NAME VARCHAR2(30))
TABLESPACE ??;
So how do I use the TABLESPACE substitution value in the install script above? Use "&TABLESPACE:", use ":TABLESPACE"?
Edited by: tjoneslo on Nov 25, 2008 11:56 AM

To answer my own question. The install scripts are run as sql (or pl/sql) statements. You can access the pre-defined substitution strings via the v('NAME') parameter call (e.g. v('APP_USER')) but the application substitution strings, even though we are prompting for them, are not available.
Which would make for a good enhancement.

Supporting Object Install Scripts - populate clob table

All
Before I delve into exactly how I thought I'd ask the forum if anyone had packaged up an install script to populate a table with a clob column?
I have an app that I am finishing up and the one remaining table has a clob column which obviously doesn't make for simple SQL inserts due to the CLOB type.
Thanks in advance
Phil

Hi Vadimon,
Thanks for reporting this, however I am struggling to reproduce the issue.
I created an application with 2 installation scripts (1 without a condition and 1 with a condition set to NEVER), then imported this into a 4.1 instance installing supporting objects. Here, only the 1 without a condition executed, as expected. I then created 2 upgrade scripts (again 1 without a condition and 1 with a condition set to NEVER), then re-imported this to upgrade the application. Again, only the 1 without a condition executed, as expected.
Would you be able to send me an export of an application where this reproduces, or provide the steps you took to reproduce this?
Regards,
Anthony.

Post Install Scripts

I am creating an image with System Utility. One module i can add is called "Add Packages and Post-Install Scripts".
I put one of my scripts in it:
#!bin/sh
defaults write /Library/Preferences/com.apple.loginwindow LoginwindowText "Hello"
But I get an error when trying to image saying "install setup failed: run postinstall script"
I know the script works because i tested it.
Any ideas?

probably not…
try using the defined installer variables instead of a specific path. there's a quick rundown here, though there's probably better documentation of it elsewhere: http://tinyurl.com/yejppmm
basically, you probably want $3:
$1: Full Path to Package
$2: Full Path to target installation directory: /Applications
$3: Mountpoint of installation disk: / or /Volumes/External_Drive
$4: Root directory of currently booted system
your script may be failing because the installer is trying to run it on the booted volume, which won't work. you want it to apply to the restored/newly installed volume.

How to install scripts in InDesign

Installing Script In design

Hello,
Thank you for your post.
I am afraid that the issue is out of support range of VS General Question forum which mainly discusses
the usage of Visual Studio IDE such as WPF & SL designer, Visual Studio Guidance Automation Toolkit, Developer Documentation and Help System
and Visual Studio Editor.
It seems that InDesign is Adobe product, so I suggest consulting your issue on Adobe InDesign help:
https://helpx.adobe.com/indesign.html for better support.
Thanks,
We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
Click
HERE to participate the survey.

Install media 2012.08.04 and latest install scripts - the shell

I'm just curious about this: the latest install media uses zsh, the install scripts are bash scripts - the shell you're dropped in after "arch-chroot" is sh (SHELL=/bin/sh chroot "$@")
Why do we use sh in the chrooted environment?

Allan wrote:Because zsh is not installed by default...
I understand, but let me rephrase : why the shell in the chrooted environment is sh and not bash? Isn't bash installed by default?
In the previous version of the install scripts (present in the previous version of the install cd) the chrooted shell was bash, and in Arch "sh" is a symlink to bash (if I understand correctly, calling "bash" as "sh" make bash behave like sh).
So, there's a reason to use sh in the chrooted installation?

The installer found unexpected changes to the install script

Hi,
I've just try to install PC Client 15.7 "EBF 23439: 15.7 SP130" Just downloded from Service Market Place on a Win 03 R2 32 bit and on Windows 12 R2 64 bit
On Win 03 R3 32 bit it works fine but in Win 12 R2 there isen0t any way to run Sybase Central.
When I try to uninstall, on each machine, there are only thi message:
Unable to lunch installer
The installer found unexpected changes to the install script:

Hi,
So you are saying that PC-Client 15.7 SP130 doesn't uninstall? I will look into this.
If you go to your control panel and installed software.
What version(s) of Microsoft Studio do you have installed?
What versions of Microsoft Visual C++ #### Redistributable Packages do you have?
From what I saw they had pulled the Sybase Central out of PC-Client.
You might be able to get from ASE 15.5 version of PC-Client.
Please note that PC-Client with Sybase Central was never certified with Windows 8 or 2012. So you never get Sybase Central to work on those operating systems.
PC-Client 15.5 last drop should have been certified with Windows 7.
Thanks,
Dawn Kim

[SOLVED] Pacman 3.5.1 and install script problem.

Hi, i'm currently maintaining dkms-nvidia package in AUR. After upgrading to pacman 3.5.1 install script doesn't work anymore. I have searched forum and some googled but i haven't got a clue. It was working with pacman 3.4.3 (i have skipped 3.5.0 release). Does something changed with 3.5.x release about install script handling? Here is the install script:
http://pastebin.com/Lpehuabk
Last edited by tarakbumba (2011-04-06 07:18:16)

I have found the problem, i think. When i extracted my compiled dkms-nvidia package i get :
02:35 atilla@tarakbumba:~/DEPOM/Archlinux/Paketler/dkms-nvidia-270.30-3-x86_64.pkg$ ls -lah
toplam 24K
drwxr-xr-x 4 atilla users 4,0K Mar 30 02:35 .
drwxr-xr-x 3 atilla users 4,0K Mar 30 02:35 ..
drwxr-xr-x 3 atilla users 4,0K Mar 30 02:34 etc
-rw-r--r-- 1 atilla users 1,2K Mar 30 02:34 .iNSTALL
-rw-r--r-- 1 atilla users 1,7K Mar 30 02:34 .PKGINFO
drwxr-xr-x 3 atilla users 4,0K Mar 30 02:34 usr
See the ".iNSTALL"? But when it comes to pacman package file is ".INSTALL". Also namcap throws a warning:
02:41 atilla@tarakbumba:~/DEPOM/Archlinux/Paketler$ namcap dkms-nvidia-270.30-3-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz
dkms-nvidia W: Dependency included and not needed ('dkms')
dkms-nvidia E: Missing custom license directory (usr/share/licenses/dkms-nvidia)
dkms-nvidia W: File (.iNSTALL) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/xapi-sdk.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/cpuopsys.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nvtypes.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv-i2c.c) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/README.template) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/os-registry.c) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv-memdbg.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv_gvi.c) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/os-agp.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/os-agp.c) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nvacpi.c) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/rmretval.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/conftest.sh) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv-cray.c) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/gcc-version-check.c) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv-reg.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/os-interface.c) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/dkms.conf) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv.c) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/g_nvreadme.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv-linux.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv-vm.c) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/rmil.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv-misc.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/makefile) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/Makefile.kbuild) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/os-interface.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv-vm.h) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/Makefile.nvidia) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia W: File (usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv-kernel.o) exists in a non-standard directory.
dkms-nvidia E: ELF file ('usr/src/nvidia-270.30/nv-kernel.o') outside of a valid path.
See "dkms-nvidia W: File (.iNSTALL) exists in a non-standard directory." ?
My older packges also have ".iNSTALL" but pacman-3.4.3 was taking care of it. Now it ignores install scriplets like these. It is either a makepkg bug or pacman bug. Any help or should i open a bug report?
Last edited by tarakbumba (2011-03-29 23:45:26)

I have tried to upgrade Painter 11 on my iMac running OS X 10.5.8. I keep getting the error message :- : The following install step failed : run pre install script for Corel Painter11 _ SP1 . Contact the software manufacturer for assistance " Help pleas

I have tried to upgrade Painter 11 on my iMac running OS x 10.5.8 but get the error message : The following install step failed : run pre install script for Corel Painter11_SP1. Contact the software manufacturer for assistance "
I have contacted Corel and after several emails and one telephone call, they tell me , they cannot help but they think the problem could be with the OS.
Does anyone have any suggestions, please ?

Could be many things, we should start with this...
"Try Disk Utility
1. Insert the Mac OS X Install disc, then restart the computer while holding the C key.
2. When your computer finishes starting up from the disc, choose Disk Utility from the Installer menu at top of the screen. (In Mac OS X 10.4 or later, you must select your language first.)
*Important: Do not click Continue in the first screen of the Installer. If you do, you must restart from the disc again to access Disk Utility.*
3. Click the First Aid tab.
4. Select your Mac OS X volume.
5. Click Repair Disk, (not Repair Permissions). Disk Utility checks and repairs the disk."
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106214
Then try a Safe Boot, (holding Shift key down at bootup), run Disk Utility in Applications>Utilities, then highlight your drive, click on Repair Permissions, reboot when it completes.
(Safe boot may stay on the gray radian for a long time, let it go, it's trying to repair the Hard Drive.)
If perchance you can't find your install Disc, at least try it from the Safe Boot part onward.

Run same install scripts only once

I recently found the install script mechanism quite inefficient (and I'm sure many other people have noticed it as well).
for example,if I install the texlive-most group, after every package installed, mktexlsr would run once. But actually, the only one that is necessary is the last one.
So I think if pacman could run every same install script only once, this would speed pacman up a lot (especially when you haven't upgrade for two months!)
Last edited by darkraven (2011-01-23 03:25:03)

Get coding:
http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/
http://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Us … cman_Hooks

About post install scripts...

hi,
i wonder if there is a solution for the post-install script problem to prevent some commands like "rm -rf /" to be executed. I know that Gentoo hasn't got this problem because ebuild scripts use a particular language that doesn't implement a such command. But for Arch which uses bash, could this problem be really resolved ?
Comete.

Toth wrote:[...]
A package is software, and you have to trust that the software you are downloading is legit. If it is, and you trust the packager, you have no reason not to trust the package.
exactly ---> do not download from sources you dont trust
(if you ever worked on a windows, you know that already, because there is a lot of evil things around (spyware, virus, bacteria, nice VB-scripts, nice JS-scripts ...))
-> the problem about security: if your OS becomes popular, then the bad guys see it as enough popular to do something bad with it
Toth wrote:I assure you, if the package maintainers ever run across a submitted package with "rm -rf /" in the post install script, they won't add it to the Arch Linux repositories. If/when you find a 3rd-party Arch package for download, that's a risk you are going to have to take. Check the scripts, check the source of the program (if you're paranoid). That's about all you can do.
what about a check (in pacman), to give warning, that something will be done with / ... as i know, there is no line to run with / as parameter for a normal reason during an installation or upgrade
if you download a non-archlinux.org package (downloaded from somewhere else), the install procedure is now this:
> pacman -A bad-0.1-1.pkg.tar.gz
loading package data... done.
checking for conflicts... done.
installing ... done.
>
the check would look like this:
> pacman -A bad-0.1-1.pkg.tar.gz
loading package data... done.
checking install/upgrade scripts ...
Warning: Found lines in Install-Script that contain / :
line 3: do something
line 4: cd / <---
line 5: rm -rf *
line 6: echo "I was a bad script"
Continue with installation [y|N] y
checking for conflicts... done.
installing ... done.
I was a bad script
>
this will at least give the user a chance to look at code that contain "/ " in the install/upgrade/remove-scripts and have some control
of course this will not check the package-content :-( ... but at least you will have one leak closed particulary

Acrobat 11 Pro installer get's hung up when it gets' to "Installing script packages-"

I have a 2008 15" Unibody Macbook Pro with the replaceable five hour battery. It has 8 GS of RAM and it is booted under Mountain Lion. The Acrobat 11 Pro installer get's hung up when it gets to "Installing script packages…" It never finishes installation. I've tried it after booting in Safe Boot Mode and then again in regular boot mode. I've had no success. The Acrobat 11 Pro installer works fine when installing on my 2007 32bit Mac Pro desktop, booted under Lion. Do I need to try something fancy with command line, using the Terminal app? I'm stumped.

Greetings, Rave and Sabian.
I resolved the Acrobat 11 Pro install issue without reformatting my Macbook Pro's internal hard drive. I reinstalled Mountain Lion on top of the existing Mountain Lion installation.
I reinstalled Lion on my '07 32bit Mac Pro, about a month ago, and it resolved a lot of issues. So, re-installing Mountain Lion on top of the existing Mountain Lion installation was the fix to get the Acrobat 11 Pro install to complete and also eliminate some other system bugs I was having.
After using Acrobat 11 Pro on my Mac Pro, for over a week, I have to say it is a huge improvement over Acrobat 9 Pro. I love having the tools and commenting tabs over to the right of the window and using the top menu less. It makes scrolling through PDF pages and comments two separate activities, allowing the screen refresh to be much quicker and better.
Acrobat 11 Pro is a great version!

Install script

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for