Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Fixing existing scripts


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#1 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 17 October 2006 - 01:58 PM

Hi all

Last days we have had some troubles with Ove's USB script.

It started rather harmless: Somebody found that the size of the ISO can be reduced if instead of expanding some drivers it is sufficient to copy the .??_ compressed version.

Somebody else thought that this new knowledge could be brought to existing scripts. He did so and exposed the scripts at his FTP page for test.

Somebody else found that the new scripts did not work correctly.

So everything has been rolled back.

Lost time?

Not really: We learned from this affair.

My statement:

If a .script developer publishes a script, I'm sure that he/she exactly knows 'Why What is made like it is'
So, if there is any suggestion, post the suggestion, but let the developer decide whether to follow the suggestion or not.
Never publish a modified script (written by a named author) with the suggestions implemented!


From my personal point of view: autoUPX.Script is a similar case!

Peter

#2 Ove

Ove

    .script developer

  • .script developer
  • 192 posts
  • Location:Fagaras, Romania
  •  
    Romania

Posted 25 October 2006 - 10:24 AM

I think you are right.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I make a script, I try to make it as small as possible, and don't publish it until it's ready. And I know why each file/reg entry is there for, they are not there just for play.

I agree with your quote (to give the author a suggestion about the modifications to be made) and I want to add that, as in my case, if the developer is not around much to read all the posts, people who modify the script should PM the developer with the new script, explaining why he made every modification.

#3 edborg

edborg

    Frequent Member

  • .script developer
  • 387 posts
  •  
    Italy

Posted 26 October 2006 - 08:20 AM

.............
I agree with your quote (to give the author a suggestion about the modifications to be made) and I want to add that, as in my case, if the developer is not around much to read all the posts, people who modify the script should PM the developer with the new script, explaining why he made every modification.

This is exactly what I've done ... but got no reply at all. :P
May be my modification was not intelligent enough. :P
edborg

#4 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 26 October 2006 - 10:31 AM

BTW, what about my suggestion for USB kbd and mouse?
Was it somehow lost or rejected?
In general, what do you think about additional sub-forum "Scripts" that would have one sticky topic per script?
Or, maybe, one sticky topic per developer (if developer really wants it this way).
You can see how it works with Nuno's topics about WB bettas (not bad in my opinion), though I suppose just one topic per script, not per script version :P
:P
Alexei
PS
I had this idea for a long time, but felt it's too early for it :P

#5 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 26 October 2006 - 04:29 PM

In general, what do you think about additional sub-forum "Scripts" that would have one sticky topic per script?


Nice idea :P

I would be glad if that could be done.
(I'm sometimes searching for something due to script X, but possibly posted in a different post.)
Following Alexei's suggestion, maybe a subforum 'Script Issues' can help.

I think all depends on the discipline of the posters.
This is not a good way:
- I post to beta X:

:P

Then I add in the same post:

I have troubles with script Y

Then somebody makes a reply in the beta X topic due to script Y
etc. ...

Who created the chaos? Me (in this sample :P ), because I posted something which does not logically belong to 'beta X'

So, let's all first try to have a little bit more of discipline. :P

Peter

#6 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 26 October 2006 - 06:09 PM

Nice idea :P

I would be glad if that could be done.
(I'm sometimes searching for something due to script X, but possibly posted in a different post.)
Following Alexei's suggestion, maybe a subforum 'Script Issues' can help.

I think all depends on the discipline of the posters.
This is not a good way:
- I post to beta X:

Then I add in the same post:

Then somebody makes a reply in the beta X topic due to script Y
etc. ...

Who created the chaos? Me (in this sample :P ), because I posted something which does not logically belong to 'beta X'

So, let's all first try to have a little bit more of discipline. :P

Peter

This chaos would not be too hard to deal with :P
In your example:
- If author of script X makes post about script Y to "script X"-topic - it's his business :P
- If somebody else posts about script Y to "script X"-topic - author of script X deletes it without mersy :P
I mean, authors can "actively" moderate "their" sub-forums :P
:P
Alexei

#7 Ove

Ove

    .script developer

  • .script developer
  • 192 posts
  • Location:Fagaras, Romania
  •  
    Romania

Posted 29 October 2006 - 03:17 PM

@edborg
@Alexei
Your changes have not been rejected or anything like that.
I have been concentrating on making the FBWF script work instead of RAMDisk and have had little time to make them.
I don't consider your modifications or any other suggestions "not intelligent enough".
I will make the modifications.
Sorry for that.

#8 phox

phox

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 764 posts

Posted 29 October 2006 - 03:37 PM

By my testing, following commands in Copy_and_Expand_files script could be removed:

FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\KDCOM.DL_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"

FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBD.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBEHCI.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBHUB.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBOHCI.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBPORT.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBSTOR.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBUHCI.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"

I kindly suggest to author of this script to test it and if acceptable apply it.
If not, please give some arguments!

#9 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 29 October 2006 - 04:04 PM

By my testing, following commands in Copy_and_Expand_files script could be removed:

FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\KDCOM.DL_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"

FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBD.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBEHCI.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBHUB.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBOHCI.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBPORT.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBSTOR.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\USBUHCI.SY_","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\drivers"

I kindly suggest to author of this script to test it and if acceptable apply it.
If not, please give some arguments!


I'm the person which mainly maintains the sandbox.
But every .script developer can do, you included.

If you have a look at this, you see that the script mentioned above is authored by 'The community'.
Therefore every .script developer can make senceful changes.

How to do, have a look at my tutorial about maintaining the sandbox.

There are many steps to do (I'v them semi automated). If it is too complicated for you, or you can't access the sandbox by FTP, I can do for you.

Peter

BTW: Do your tests include
- XP SP2 and W2003
- English and at least one foreign language?
If not, you should do it before deleting the statements.
(In my opinion they are unnecessary, too; but I did not do the four tests)

#10 phox

phox

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 764 posts

Posted 29 October 2006 - 05:41 PM

There are many steps to do (I'v them semi automated).
If it is too complicated for you, or you can't access the sandbox by FTP,
I can do for you.

Maybe I could learn all that, but it will take some time.

BTW: Do your tests include
- XP SP2 and W2003
- English and at least one foreign language?
If not, you should do it before deleting the statements.
(In my opinion they are unnecessary, too; but I did not do the four tests)

I have done it only with English XP SP2. I could do it with 2003 too,
but not with non-English source. The best will be, if you find time,
to test it with German 2003 and upload change if test is successful.

Thank you!

#11 phox

phox

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 764 posts

Posted 29 October 2006 - 07:51 PM

1. BootfromRAM.Script is in Archive/Build folder (where it should be) and
BootFromRAM.Link should be moved also in Standard/Build folder.

2. From WinSxS.Script following Interface should be removed as it is not relevant:
pTextLabel2="It is your choice to UPX the WinSxS files",1,1,57,82,261,18,9,Normal

3. In ProjectInfo.Script text “Dokumente und Einstellungen” should be
Replaced with “Documents and Settings”.

#12 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 30 October 2006 - 07:48 AM

1. BootfromRAM.Script is in Archive/Build folder (where it should be) and
BootFromRAM.Link should be moved also in Standard/Build folder.

2. From WinSxS.Script following Interface should be removed as it is not relevant:
pTextLabel2="It is your choice to UPX the WinSxS files",1,1,57,82,261,18,9,Normal

3. In ProjectInfo.Script text “Dokumente und Einstellungen” should be
Replaced with “Documents and Settings”.


I changed in my 'To Sandbox'
Because that are minor changes I'll include in the next upload.

Peter

#13 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 30 October 2006 - 08:58 AM

have done it only with English XP SP2. I could do it with 2003 too,
but not with non-English source. The best will be, if you find time,
to test it with German 2003 and upload change if test is successful.

I did all 4 tests: ok

So I'm going to upload the changes

Peter

#14 phox

phox

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 764 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:39 AM

I did all 4 tests: ok
So I'm going to upload the changes.

Thank you! :P

#15 phox

phox

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 764 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 10:44 AM

After carefully examinations I have found following unnecessary files and folders
and suggest to script authors to check it and apply changes to relevant scripts:

1. Standard-2-CopyAndExpand.Script:

FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\BIOSINFO.INF","%TargetDir%\i386"

2. Standard-1-MakeDirs.Script, empty folders:

DirMake,"%targetdir%\i386\inf"
DirMake,"%targetdir%\i386\system32\drivers\etc"

3. DisplayProperties.Script, Holger Kotsch:

This command gives false ERROR message:
If,%pCheckBox5%,Equal,false,FileDelete,"%TargetSys32%\screensaver.exe"

Whole 3D screensavers routine is not working properly:

If,%pCheckBox7%,Equal,true,Run,%ScriptFile%,Process-Copy3D

pCheckBox7="Copy 3D screensavers (Pipes, 3D-Objects, etc.) ~ 1,3 MB",1,3,30,345,300,18,False

“3D-Pipes (Not W2003!)",1,4,30,390,150,21,"3D-FlowerBox (Not W2003!)","3D-Objects (Not W2003!)","3D-Pipes (Not W2003!)","3D-Text (Not W2003!)",

[Process-Copy3D]
Echo,"Copy 3D screensavers ..."
Expand,"%SourceDir%\i386\d3d8.dl_","%TargetSys32%"
Expand,"%SourceDir%\i386\d3d8thk.dl_","%TargetSys32%"
Expand,"%SourceDir%\i386\logon.sc_","%TargetSys32%"
If,%OS%,Equal,XP,Expand,"%SourceDir%\i386\ss3dfo.sc_","%TargetSys32%"
If,%OS%,Equal,XP,Expand,"%SourceDir%\i386\ssflwbox.sc_","%TargetSys32%"
If,%OS%,Equal,XP,Expand,"%SourceDir%\i386\sspipes.sc_","%TargetSys32%"
If,%OS%,Equal,XP,Expand,"%SourceDir%\i386\sstext3d.sc_","%TargetSys32%"
Set,"%ScreenSaverSet%","1"

4. RegEdit.Script, Radoi Ovidiu:
Icon title should be changed from Windows Registry Editor into RegEdit

5. TaskMan.Script, Radoi Ovidiu:

Icon title should be from Windows Task Manager into TaskMan

6. MkISOfs.Script

FileCopy,"%ProjectDir%\ProjectInfo.ini","%TargetDir%"

7. WinSxS.Script, Peter Schlang, empty folders:

If,NotExistDir,"%TargetDir%\i386\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Tools.VisualCPlusPlus.Runtime-Libraries.Resources_6595b64144ccf1df_6.0.0.0_pt-PT_bb297039"
If,NotExistDir,"%TargetDir%\i386\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Windows.Common-Controls_6595b64144ccf1df_6.0.2600.2180_x-ww_a84f1ff9"
If,NotExistDir,"%TargetDir%\i386\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Windows.CPlusPlusRuntime_6595b64144ccf1df_7.0.0.0_x-ww_2726e76a"
If,NotExistDir,"%TargetDir%\i386\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Windows.CPlusPlusRuntime_6595b64144ccf1df_7.0.2600.2180_x-ww_b2505ed9"
If,NotExistDir,"%TargetDir%\i386\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Windows.GdiPlus_6595b64144ccf1df_1.0.0.0_x-ww_8d353f13"
If,NotExistDir,"%TargetDir%\i386\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Windows.GdiPlus_6595b64144ccf1df_1.0.2600.2180_x-ww_522f9f82"
If,NotExistDir,"%TargetDir%\i386\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Windows.Networking.Dxmrtp_6595b64144ccf1df_5.2.2.3_x-ww_468466a7"
If,NotExistDir,"%TargetDir%\i386\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Windows.Networking.RtcDll_6595b64144ccf1df_5.2.2.3_x-ww_d6bd8b95"
If,NotExistDir,"%TargetDir%\i386\WinSxS\x86_Microsoft.Windows.Networking.RtcRes_6595b64144ccf1df_5.2.2.3_pt-PT_29301d5c"

#16 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 02:45 PM

After carefully examinations I have found following unnecessary files and folders
and suggest to script authors to check it and apply changes to relevant scripts:

1. Standard-2-CopyAndExpand.Script:

FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\BIOSINFO.INF","%TargetDir%\i386"
.........................

I strongly disagree with reducing Standard-2-CopyAndExpand.Script out of anybody's experience (including myself). Personal "careful examination" on limited set of hardware may not be enough. For example, as I remember, BIOSINFO.INF defines workarounds for some PCs with "strange" bioses, UCB-files, most probably, are needed to boot from USB devices (including USB-CDROM) etc.
Generally, reducing functions of "basic" scripts may lead to unexpected problems (for other users).
What we can do about it?
I propose to set at least one switch (add checkbox) to the CopyAndExpand. That switch should control if "minimal" or "extensive" set of "basic" files has to be copied. Default should be set on "extensive" to protect unexperienced users from troubles.
:P
Alexei

#17 smiley

smiley

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 905 posts
  •  
    Greece

Posted 30 October 2006 - 04:48 PM

I strongly disagree with reducing Standard-2-CopyAndExpand.Script out of anybody's experience (including myself). Personal "careful examination" on limited set of hardware may not be enough. For example, as I remember, BIOSINFO.INF defines workarounds for some PCs with "strange" bioses, UCB-files, most probably, are needed to boot from USB devices (including USB-CDROM) etc.
Generally, reducing functions of "basic" scripts may lead to unexpected problems (for other users).
What we can do about it?
I propose to set at least one switch (add checkbox) to the CopyAndExpand. That switch should control if "minimal" or "extensive" set of "basic" files has to be copied. Default should be set on "extensive" to protect unexperienced users from troubles.
:P
Alexei


I agree 100% :P

#18 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12702 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 30 October 2006 - 05:42 PM

I agree 100% :P

The new sandbox still contains biosinfo.
I only removed the USB... entries; they have to be set by USB scripts.

Peter

#19 phox

phox

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 764 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 05:45 PM

For example, as I remember, BIOSINFO.INF defines workarounds
for some PCs with "strange" bioses, UCB-files, most probably,
are needed to boot from USB devices (including USB-CDROM) etc.


This is valid only for second command. First command is not necessary!

FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\BIOSINFO.INF","%TargetDir%\i386"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\BIOSINFO.INF","%TargetDir%\i386\system32"

Please read the Script more carefully!

#20 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 08:00 PM

This is valid only for second command. First command is not necessary!

FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\BIOSINFO.INF","%TargetDir%\i386"
FileCopy,"%SourceDir%\I386\BIOSINFO.INF","%TargetDir%\i386\system32"

Please read the Script more carefully!

Are you 100% sure it's excessive duplication? Bart PE has it in the same two directories.

#21 phox

phox

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 764 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 08:15 PM

Are you 100% sure it's excessive duplication? Bart PE has it in the same two directories.


1. Duplication could not be excessive!
2. It is not duplication: commands are not the same!
3. Are you 100% sure that Bart is right?
4. Test it and than comment it, please!

#22 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 01:51 AM

1. Duplication could not be excessive!
2. It is not duplication: commands are not the same!
3. Are you 100% sure that Bart is right?
4. Test it and than comment it, please!

1. I meant "Duplication" as a presence of the same file twice and "excessive" as not necessary. It's obvious.
2. see 1.
3. No, but it's better to be on a safe site with issues of that kind :P
4. It seems testing of this issue is not possible for both of us (no such hardware). So, see 3.
Regards.
Alexei

#23 phox

phox

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 764 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 05:07 AM

1. I meant "Duplication" as a presence of the same file twice and "excessive" as not necessary. It's obvious.
2. see 1.
3. No, but it's better to be on a safe site with issues of that kind :P
4. It seems testing of this issue is not possible for both of us (no such hardware). So, see 3.
Regards.
Alexei


1. You should write new English dictionary.
2. See 1.
3. Safest site for you is BartPE.
4. No test, no rest!

#24 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 31 October 2006 - 10:26 AM

1. You should write new English dictionary.
2. See 1.
3. Safest site for you is BartPE.
4. No test, no rest!

1. Try Google on "excessive duplication" :P :P
2. See 1.
3. It's safer to have possibly excessive duplications (you can learn some english from here).
4. In MS PE BIOSINFO.INF is also present in two locations. Enjoy your testing :P
:P
Alexei




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users