Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Vista compatibility - HKU instead of HKLM


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#26 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1719 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 20 March 2007 - 11:59 AM

Because at the moment I have a huge investment made over several years in pebuilder. Winbuilder has the advantage of it being actively developed and is more flexible. Moving from where I am now to using winbuilder instead is a huge undertaking. I would like to do work on using winbuilder but finding the time to do both pebuilder / winbuilder work is proving to be impossible.

#27 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10524 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 March 2007 - 12:09 PM

If you need ideas about what to do next how about making it compatible with pebuilder. So I could drop winbuilder into the pebuilder directory. Then run it and it automatically processes the pebuilder inf files and produces exactly the same iso that pebuilder would have created.


I've already done something very similar to this around versions 28 to 40 (if my memory doesn't fail).

wb also searched and executed .inf files, I just commented those lines out of the script engine and newer search functions.

If there is enough interest them I can read the code and fix them to work as expected - just need to take a few days from my day time work to get enough time for getting this and other requests finished..

:cheers:


MedEvil, I think I understand how you feel, the good part is that things to tend to balance themselves, and even tought we have many branches and custom projects available, the mix also allow to have much more flexibility and try a lot of different configurations without having a lot of work to see the results since the projects are becoming more specialized.

Let's wait a few more weeks and I will start the documentation process, where things will seem a lot more clear.. :cheers:

#28 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12701 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 March 2007 - 12:48 PM

Because at the moment I have a huge investment made over several years in pebuilder. Winbuilder has the advantage of it being actively developed and is more flexible. Moving from where I am now to using winbuilder instead is a huge undertaking. I would like to do work on using winbuilder but finding the time to do both pebuilder / winbuilder work is proving to be impossible.

:cheers:

Peter

#29 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10524 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 March 2007 - 01:08 PM

Ok, I understand - I'll download a fresh base of bartPE and get my hands on it while some other things are also solved (upload method, language support and interface recoding, new commands..)

I surely can add back support for .inf plugins, but I'm not sure about a drag and drop replacement of bart's PE builder since it contains a lot of fixed settings inside the exe while wb tries to keep them all placed inside projects.

Will report back once I actually work on it.. :cheers:

#30 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12701 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 March 2007 - 01:12 PM

If you need ideas about what to do next how about making it compatible with pebuilder. So I could drop winbuilder into the pebuilder directory. Then run it and it automatically processes the pebuilder inf files and produces exactly the same iso that pebuilder would have created.


As you know, I'm on the opposite site. I did a lot of work to make WinBuilder independent from BartPE, Reatogo or whatelse. Main reasons have heen the predefined hives, folder names etc.

It is an interesting job to pick up pebuilder and

create exactly logically the same iso that pebuilder would have created


I do not like 'exactly' bacause that would mean that I as a German again have to see 'program files' :cheers:

Peter :cheers:

#31 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10524 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 March 2007 - 01:59 PM

I also don't intend running .inf files using the inf engine like bart pe, rather finishing what needs to be done to complete the runtime plugin converter inside wb that is already added and this way make .inf become flexible and stable to all our project requirements.

Give me this week to produce some visible results.. :cheers:

#32 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12701 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 March 2007 - 02:10 PM

I also don't intend running .inf files using the inf engine like bart pe, rather finishing what needs to be done to complete the runtime plugin converter inside wb that is already added and this way make .inf become flexible and stable to all our project requirements.

Give me this week to produce some visible results.. :cheers:


Remember a similar discussion some days before:
Please concentrate on actual issues, do not create new 'Under Construction' :cheers:

Peter

#33 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 20 March 2007 - 11:45 PM

Wouldn't it be smarter to create a converter that turns plugins into scripts?
As far as i know, is someone already working on a program like that.

:cheers:

#34 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 20 March 2007 - 11:59 PM

MedEvil, I think I understand how you feel, the good part is that things to tend to balance themselves, and even tought we have many branches and custom projects available, the mix also allow to have much more flexibility and try a lot of different configurations without having a lot of work to see the results since the projects are becoming more specialized.

I've come up with a smarter solution! :cheers:
Instead of a bunch of projects that might become incompatible to eachother. I suggest one project that includes everything. But uses profiles to quickly switch between various builds.
This way we keep compatibility, simplify the build process, increase overview and keep flexibility.
Well actually, we would increae flexibility, as everyone can have as many profiles as he likes and profiles can even be shared.

:cheers:

#35 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10524 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 March 2007 - 12:44 AM

Wouldn't it be smarter to create a converter that turns plugins into scripts?
As far as i know, is someone already working on a program like that.

:cheers:


Yep, it's bundled inside wb since version 28 - wb will pick a bartpe .inf and translate straight to .script compatible commands, you can find this function under the tools section - but it was never finished, some buggy behavior needing some correction on the dir/file copy - nothing complicated.

On these earlier editions, you could easily open the plugins folder to add all .inf files for running.

nikzzzz has also created a fully compatible translation app - very nice to use too.. :cheers:

I've come up with a smarter solution! :cheers:
Instead of a bunch of projects that might become incompatible to eachother. I suggest one project that includes everything. But uses profiles to quickly switch between various builds.
This way we keep compatibility, simplify the build process, increase overview and keep flexibility.
Well actually, we would increae flexibility, as everyone can have as many profiles as he likes and profiles can even be shared.

:cheers:


Yes, it's a good idea, I will try to work on this idea to apply them both on projects and download center - but not sure yet on how to start, need to do some testings..

VistaPE helps a lot since the web server is sized on 80Mb, so there's a lot of optimization needed to make downloads as effective as possible.. :cheers:

#36 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 21 March 2007 - 01:04 AM

Yes, it's a good idea, I will try to work on this idea to apply them both on projects and download center - but not sure yet on how to start, need to do some testings..

No need for you to code anything. The profile thing is just another script.

#37 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12701 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 March 2007 - 10:03 AM

No need for you to code anything. The profile thing is just another script.


We have it since a long time! :cheers:

See here!

Peter :cheers:

#38 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 22 March 2007 - 11:24 PM

We have it since a long time! :cheers:

See here!

Peter :cheers:

No, profiles are not ment to hide or show different scripts, but to set values across all scripts.
It's a 'my options' script on steroids with a simpler interface.
Just 'save current configuration to' and 'load configuration' with a listview.

:cheers:

edit:
Maybe a checkbox for 'allow profile to hide scripts' could be put in as well.?

#39 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12701 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 23 March 2007 - 08:38 AM

No, profiles are not ment to hide or show different scripts, but to set values across all scripts.
It's a 'my options' script on steroids with a simpler interface.
Just 'save current configuration to' and 'load configuration' with a listview.

:cheers:

edit:
Maybe a checkbox for 'allow profile to hide scripts' could be put in as well.?


I'll think about to combine my options with WBManager and make a simpler GUI.

Peter :cheers:

#40 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 23 March 2007 - 10:41 PM

I'll think about to combine my options with WBManager and make a simpler GUI.

Peter :cheers:

Sounds great! Less work for me. :cheers:
But maybe make that checkbox to hide scripts better two buttons. 'show all scripts' and 'show only enabled scripts'

:cheers:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users