irsetup.exe - possible to skip it, or to run it directly?

[pww]

Hi,

best wishes for the new year !

I want to create with SF an updater for my apps - it will connect to my server, check if there is a newer version, and if yes download and install the files.
So it is in fact an application, not an installer - there are no files embedded in the setup, just a couple of screens and a bit of script code. File is named update.exe

I know how to do this, the issue is such updater should be allowed to connect to my server, so the user firewall should be configured accordingly.

And the problem is that the file which should be allowed to connect, irsetup.exe, does not exist - it's created in a temp folder when I run update.exe, then is started by update.exe, and is then deleted automatically by update.exe at the end.
Even if I create a firewall rule that allows irsetup.exe to connect, my firewall pops up an alert that irsetup.exe tries to connect to somewhere every time I run update.exe (I guess because irsetup.exe always has a 'now' timestamp, so the firewall thinks it has been changed and ignores the rule).

Any idea for a workaround? Like is it possible to run irsetup.exe directly?
(when I try that it gives an error, but should be possible).

thanks

[Ulrich]

Any idea for a workaround?

Sure, have you considered using TrueUpdate for this?

Ulrich

[pww]

thanks Ulrich but I didn't mean that sort of workaround.
I prefer to do myself something that fits my needs exactly instead of learning new software (no matter how similar it may be to SF). Not to mention that I don't have a TU license and have to pay for it.

I think the main file update.exe simply extracts what's inside (irsetup.exe and a couple of other files) and then launches irsetup.exe with some parameters. Then it waits irsetup.exe to exit, and dies. So irsetup.exe should be able to run alone, just don't know how to do it.

[jassing]

I thought you could update the windows firewall to use an exe that doesn't exist... not 100% sure on that (heck; not even 50%); but I also thought that if you allowed "update.exe" to use the firewall; it would allow it's sub processes to work..... so; that's not so good there. TrueUpdate would be good; but it can get you in the same "issue" if the user doesn't have the proper rights; and the exe is downloaded/run from a temp location...

what about using something like autoit or ftp.exe and script the download; then run the update process w/o access to your webserver? ie: pre-download any needed info before running update.exe, or shell out to something like ftp.exe or an autoit script that could be "static".

[pww]

thanks jassing.
Downloading files separately outside the updater is a good idea I didn't think of.

I actually managed to run irsetup.exe directly, had to use Process Explorer to see what command line arguments update.exe sends to irsetup.exe. Then irsetup.exe can be started directly with the same arguments.
(_CommandLineArgs[1] then becomes irsetup.exe or whatever the exe is named. What's usually _CommandLineArgs[1] becomes _CommandLineArgs[2] etc.)

It still requires update.exe to be present - refuses to run without it, like if I specify non-SF generated exe in the command line. Wonder why is it so, because update.exe doesn't get loaded at all. Actually I wonder what's the purpose of update.exe and this exe-in-exe structure at all. Maybe someone from IR will explain this, and can there be problems if irsetup.exe is run directly?

Anyway, for now it's enough for me to know I can use irsetup.exe as a static, always existing file.