Side by side installation of InstallAware

[adi]

Hello,

Why can't I install two InstallAware versions on the same machine? This is very unprofessional, side by side installation should be offered by default (in the end it's a product for software developers, and not end users). Do you guarantee 100% backward compatibility with previous versions? My company just upgraded the IA to version 12, and now our installers are breaking the productive servers (a separate report will come)!

Scenario:
A company is having a product in version 1.0 and plans to release it in version 2.0. The new version should be build using IA12. How is the company going to achieve that if installation of IA12 forces an uninstallation of any previous version of IA? The only option is to duplicate the whole build process (a copy of a build server where IA is playing just a tiny role - creating the installer).

[giaviv]

adi,

This is the way InstallAware is designed - only one version can be installed at a specific time.

The InstallAware's installer is built with InstallAware, so just like your program can't be installed twice, so too InstallAware can't be.

Please remove version 10 or install it on separate machines.

[adi]

adi,

The InstallAware's installer is built with InstallAware, so just like your program can't be installed twice, so too InstallAware can't be.

You are wrong. My program can be installed twice using InstallAware! You even provide an example on how to do this (project sample).
I've spend the whole day on finding the bug. I'll report it in a separate topic.

Best regards,
adi

[loganlehman]

It is not unprofessional to have two different machines running two different versions of IA. Any development platform version, in proper quality assurances practices, should be kept separate from one another. Unless you have each version installed on separate drives, or in two different VMs, then this is the best practice of quality assurance.

The system the application/installer is compiled on should stay in the same state as it was during the last build and release version. This is of course, stating that you do not have a protected repository for each version using trunks, branches, and tags.

[adi]

It is not unprofessional to have two different machines running two different versions of IA. Any development platform version, in proper quality assurances practices, should be kept separate from one another. Unless you have each version installed on separate drives, or in two different VMs, then this is the best practice of quality assurance.

The system the application/installer is compiled on should stay in the same state as it was during the last build and release version. This is of course, stating that you do not have a protected repository for each version using trunks, branches, and tags.

Hello,

There are serious implications of this limitation:

1. For developers:
Now the developer needs two development machines. One for the older and one for the newer IA version. Do you imagine such a situation where you can't install "Visual Studio 2008" and "Visual Studio 2010" side by side?

2. Build / deployment:
The build servers must also be duplicated - and just because of InstallAware which seems to be the only tool in the whole tool chain that cannot be installed in two different version on a given machine.


In both cases new machines (virtual or physical) require new licenses, administrative tasks and other resources.

Best regards,
adi

[giaviv]

adi,

I apologize, but this is the way we chose to design InstallAware, and it is quite standard.