kwilson
09-06-2002, 01:50 PM
We have two files that contain licensing information. One is for retail and one for trial. They both have the same name but installation handles this by using a flag set in the Property table to determine if trial or retail product is installed. So far this works great for our single product installation.
We do produce a suite which is a bundling of three of our products. We need to be able to drop a copy of the appropriate license agreement in each product's home directory. So far we have been able to install the files in the directories but on uninstall only the 'first' (an assumption here) file is removed and two remain behind.
I have looked at using the Duplicates table and it does not seem to provide a solution. The reason I say this is that only one of the products in this suite is 'Required' on installation and the other two are optional. We don't want to install the license files for products the user does not choose to install (it doesn't look clean if we do).
Is there a way around this? We have suggested using a different mechanism for implementing the license agreement which would negate this all together but we are very near the end of the production cycle (four days away from RC ten from GM) and I doubt I would be able to convince people we have time for the implementation change and proper QA of the change.
We do produce a suite which is a bundling of three of our products. We need to be able to drop a copy of the appropriate license agreement in each product's home directory. So far we have been able to install the files in the directories but on uninstall only the 'first' (an assumption here) file is removed and two remain behind.
I have looked at using the Duplicates table and it does not seem to provide a solution. The reason I say this is that only one of the products in this suite is 'Required' on installation and the other two are optional. We don't want to install the license files for products the user does not choose to install (it doesn't look clean if we do).
Is there a way around this? We have suggested using a different mechanism for implementing the license agreement which would negate this all together but we are very near the end of the production cycle (four days away from RC ten from GM) and I doubt I would be able to convince people we have time for the implementation change and proper QA of the change.