[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion

Using a manifest for reg-free OCXs

GS

2/20/2012 3:56:00 AM

I downloaded and tried MakeMyManifest and it seems to be a good tool.
However, after following all instructions carefully I get a failure
message regarding the app's side by side config. The structure is...

AppFolder: contains App.exe and App.exe.manifest
Deps: subfolder that contains all dep libs

...and I've also included a declare for InitCommonControls and placed a
call to it in Sub Main().

What have I missed?

--
Garry

Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-sep...
ClassicVB Users Regroup!
comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion
65 Answers

retrogrouch

6/20/2008 12:21:00 AM

0

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:41:38 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<Noemail@comcast.com> wrote:

>David Hartung <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:NqidnVI1UN3pxsfVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
>> the Constitution.
>>
>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>
>> http://tinyurl....
>>
>> From the piece:
>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>
>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>> of the decision:
>>
>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.

Do you believe Congress can set aside review of Constitutional issues?
>>
>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>> U.S. military.

And if you were arrested there by US forces would you expect them to
honor your Constitutional rights?

Or are you saying the 100s of 1000s of Americans living around the
world on bases and embassies have no rights?
>
> If US law - including the Constitution that all servicemen
>take an oath to uphold - does apply on US military bases, then
>what law does?

retrogrouch

6/20/2008 2:27:00 AM

0

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:41:38 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<Noemail@comcast.com> wrote:

>David Hartung <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:NqidnVI1UN3pxsfVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
>> the Constitution.
>>
>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>
>> http://tinyurl....
>>
>> From the piece:
>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>
>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>> of the decision:
>>
>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>
>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>> U.S. military.
>
>
> If US law - including the Constitution that all servicemen
>take an oath to uphold - does apply on US military bases, then
>what law does?


I keep coming back to this and marveling. Hartung fancies himself a
libertarian. He is an avowed "anti-statist". And yet he is only too
happy to see the state lock people up without charges or legal process
and hold them for over 6 years; and he's upset the courts believe
these people are entitled to habeas corpus to make the state make its
case that it has justifiable reason to hold them?

Am I the only one who sees this as a screaming inconsistency?

Amazing what a little fear will do to "principles" I guess.

David Hartung

6/20/2008 2:35:00 AM

0

retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:41:38 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> David Hartung <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:NqidnVI1UN3pxsfVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>>> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
>>> the Constitution.
>>>
>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>
>>> From the piece:
>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>>
>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>>> of the decision:
>>>
>>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>>> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>>
>>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>>> U.S. military.
>>
>> If US law - including the Constitution that all servicemen
>> take an oath to uphold - does apply on US military bases, then
>> what law does?
>
>
> I keep coming back to this and marveling. Hartung fancies himself a
> libertarian. He is an avowed "anti-statist". And yet he is only too
> happy to see the state lock people up without charges or legal process
> and hold them for over 6 years; and he's upset the courts believe
> these people are entitled to habeas corpus to make the state make its
> case that it has justifiable reason to hold them?
>
> Am I the only one who sees this as a screaming inconsistency?
>
> Amazing what a little fear will do to "principles" I guess.

I've asked this question before.

During WWII, we held on US soil German Prisoners. Should these men have
been given Habeas Corpus rights?

If I were to make one criticism of Bush's handling of this affair, it is
that he did not declare these prisoners to be just that, prisoners of war.

Such a declaration would have simplified the whole thing.

retrogrouch

6/20/2008 6:04:00 PM

0

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:35:19 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:

>retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:41:38 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Hartung <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:NqidnVI1UN3pxsfVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> I am well aware that many of you do not care for the Worldnet Daily, or
>>>> for Mr. Farrah. In this piece, however, Mr. Farrah raises several
>>>> interesting points. If he is correct, the five Justices who wrote the
>>>> majority opinion in the Guantanamo case, openly and blatantly violated
>>>> the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> If these men did indeed deliberately violate the Constitution, is it not
>>>> proper to consider disciplinary action against them?
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl....
>>>>
>>>> From the piece:
>>>> I decided to read the ruling for myself.
>>>>
>>>> After doing so, I found there were two important but overlooked aspects
>>>> of the decision:
>>>>
>>>> * The court not only found unconstitutional carefully crafted
>>>> congressional legislation governing the way the rights of prisoners in
>>>> Guantanamo Bay would be protected, it also reviewed a law specifically
>>>> exempted by Congress from challenge by any federal court.
>>>>
>>>> * The court found the Constitution, and all of the protections it
>>>> affords U.S. citizens, extends to the territory of Guantanamo Bay under
>>>> U.S. jurisdiction and to any other foreign land so controlled by the
>>>> U.S. military.
>>>
>>> If US law - including the Constitution that all servicemen
>>> take an oath to uphold - does apply on US military bases, then
>>> what law does?
>>
>>
>> I keep coming back to this and marveling. Hartung fancies himself a
>> libertarian. He is an avowed "anti-statist". And yet he is only too
>> happy to see the state lock people up without charges or legal process
>> and hold them for over 6 years; and he's upset the courts believe
>> these people are entitled to habeas corpus to make the state make its
>> case that it has justifiable reason to hold them?
>>
>> Am I the only one who sees this as a screaming inconsistency?
>>
>> Amazing what a little fear will do to "principles" I guess.
>
>I've asked this question before.
>
>During WWII, we held on US soil German Prisoners. Should these men have
>been given Habeas Corpus rights?
>
>If I were to make one criticism of Bush's handling of this affair, it is
>that he did not declare these prisoners to be just that, prisoners of war.

Gee no objections to six year detentions without due process, no
objection to torture, no objection that 75% of those held have no
connection to terrorism and have been held for six years?

>Such a declaration would have simplified the whole thing.

It would have prevented them from "legally" torturing them. Bush was
looking to avoid the Geneva Convention so he piled illegality on top
illegality to avoid the obvious.

And again, you the libertarian are objecting to the court finding that
when the state holds some one it needs to prove it has legal cause to
so? And you would punish the justices for protecting rights ?

And you dare to pretend to be a libertarian!

Sheesh.

David Johnston

6/20/2008 6:14:00 PM

0

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:35:19 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:


>> Amazing what a little fear will do to "principles" I guess.
>
>I've asked this question before.
>
>During WWII, we held on US soil German Prisoners. Should these men have
>been given Habeas Corpus rights?
>
>If I were to make one criticism of Bush's handling of this affair, it is
>that he did not declare these prisoners to be just that, prisoners of war.
>
>Such a declaration would have simplified the whole thing.

But there are rules about how to handle prisoners of war.

David Hartung

6/20/2008 6:29:00 PM

0

David Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:35:19 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Amazing what a little fear will do to "principles" I guess.
>> I've asked this question before.
>>
>> During WWII, we held on US soil German Prisoners. Should these men have
>> been given Habeas Corpus rights?
>>
>> If I were to make one criticism of Bush's handling of this affair, it is
>> that he did not declare these prisoners to be just that, prisoners of war.
>>
>> Such a declaration would have simplified the whole thing.
>
> But there are rules about how to handle prisoners of war.

I understand, although it seems that no one cares about how any nation
other than the USA treats POWs

retrogrouch

6/20/2008 6:38:00 PM

0

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:13:38 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:35:19 -0500, David Hartung
><d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Amazing what a little fear will do to "principles" I guess.
>>
>>I've asked this question before.
>>
>>During WWII, we held on US soil German Prisoners. Should these men have
>>been given Habeas Corpus rights?
>>
>>If I were to make one criticism of Bush's handling of this affair, it is
>>that he did not declare these prisoners to be just that, prisoners of war.
>>
>>Such a declaration would have simplified the whole thing.
>
>But there are rules about how to handle prisoners of war.


There are even rules on how to handle noncombatants.

But of course we know how the Bush administration feels about rules .
.. . and law. which is why the court has grown tired of their games
and handed them their ass yet again.

David Johnston

6/20/2008 7:12:00 PM

0

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:29:03 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:35:19 -0500, David Hartung
>> <d_hartung@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Amazing what a little fear will do to "principles" I guess.
>>> I've asked this question before.
>>>
>>> During WWII, we held on US soil German Prisoners. Should these men have
>>> been given Habeas Corpus rights?
>>>
>>> If I were to make one criticism of Bush's handling of this affair, it is
>>> that he did not declare these prisoners to be just that, prisoners of war.
>>>
>>> Such a declaration would have simplified the whole thing.
>>
>> But there are rules about how to handle prisoners of war.
>
>I understand,

Do you understand that's why Bush's people didn't want to declare them
prisoners of war?

although it seems that no one cares about how any nation
>other than the USA treats POWs

What other nations do you have in mind?

GS

2/22/2012 4:40:00 AM

0

GS formulated the question :
> I downloaded and tried MakeMyManifest and it seems to be a good tool.
> However, after following all instructions carefully I get a failure message
> regarding the app's side by side config. The structure is...
>
> AppFolder: contains App.exe and App.exe.manifest
> Deps: subfolder that contains all dep libs
>
> ..and I've also included a declare for InitCommonControls and placed a call
> to it in Sub Main().
>
> What have I missed?

The actual notification is...

"The application failed to start because its side-by-side
configuration is incorrect."

I've been tweeking everything I can think of to get it working but no
luck. I haven't tried removing References to external DLLs, though, so
should this matter if they're also in the manifest? (DLLs are located
in AppFldr alongside app.exe and app.exe.manifest)

The app also uses a treeview.ctrl (v5.0) and the comdlg.ctrl.
Everything else is 3rd party OCXs. (OCXs are located in a subfolder
under AppFldr)

--
Garry

Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-sep...
ClassicVB Users Regroup!
comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion

(Mike Mitchell)

2/22/2012 9:08:00 AM

0

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:40:23 -0500, GS <gs@somewhere.net> wrote:

>GS formulated the question :
>> I downloaded and tried MakeMyManifest and it seems to be a good tool.
>> However, after following all instructions carefully I get a failure message
>> regarding the app's side by side config. The structure is...
>>
>> AppFolder: contains App.exe and App.exe.manifest
>> Deps: subfolder that contains all dep libs
>>
>> ..and I've also included a declare for InitCommonControls and placed a call
>> to it in Sub Main().
>>
>> What have I missed?
>
>The actual notification is...
>
> "The application failed to start because its side-by-side
> configuration is incorrect."
>
>I've been tweeking everything I can think of to get it working but no
>luck. I haven't tried removing References to external DLLs, though, so
>should this matter if they're also in the manifest? (DLLs are located
>in AppFldr alongside app.exe and app.exe.manifest)
>
>The app also uses a treeview.ctrl (v5.0) and the comdlg.ctrl.
>Everything else is 3rd party OCXs. (OCXs are located in a subfolder
>under AppFldr)

This is what I do when faced with a similar, cryptic error: Create a
new, temporary folder and copy my entire app source code into it, then
reduce the controls one by one until you hit upon a combination that
works. If your app consists of many OCXs this can take quite a while.
(Some might say, oh you don't need to create a temp folder; just ZIP
up the current folder as a fall-back. But I prefer NOT to touch the
actual working folder at all during trial and error troubleshooting.
Then, when the error is finally pinpointed, you can delete the entire
temp folder without worrying whether you may inadvertently have
modified one of the other files.)

Did you get *any* VB6 app to run reg-free using MMM yet? I would build
a simple test app containing ONE dependency, e.g. MsFlxGrd.Ocx. Just a
test button with some code to populate the grid will do. Then try
building a manifest for that app. If not even that works, then maybe
you're not using MMM right.

Next issue: You do need a 'clean' XP PC (or Vista or Windows 7) to
properly check that any OCX isn't already registered. I have many
drive racks that I can swap out, one of which is a completely clean
installation of Windows XP with SP3 so that I can be confident if my
reg-free app runs on that, then it should run on all subsequent
Windows versions. So far I haven't come unstuck, but of course every
app is different, so YMMV. When I've 'dirtied' the rack during testing
I just reimage it from TrueImage to return it to pristine 'clean'
status.

MM