ShortcutsPE

Yes I know, I have ideas (not fully mature) for that too :)

First reminding: I do not want to make a mistake for today, or for tomorrow, I want organisation fully and simply fullfill all todays and future's requirements, that is the reason I am verrry speed on this having whole picture in mind, going step by step when time found.

Yes, runfromcd and runfromram should be enhanced (united) for that goal,
since apitype 1 is under your control,
better focus on apitype 2

[Run_FromRam2]
If,%AtRam%#1,Equal,FalseTrue,Begin
Set,%Target_Prog%,%TargetDir%\Program#$sFiles
If,%ProjectName%,Equal,Leopard,Set,%PE_Programs%,X:\Program#$sFiles
Else,Set,%PE_Programs%,#$pSystemDrive#$p\Program#$sFiles
Set,%PE_Cfg%,%PECfg%
End

Here obviously seen from Max adding of Leopard, it is not flexible enough ;).


At the begining,
Solution requires 2 variables for runfromcd and runfromram on script.project
maybe:
%Target_Prog_RFCD%
%PE_Programs_RFCD%

%Target_Prog_RFRAM%
%PE_Programs_RFRAM%


problem rise with Set,%PE_Cfg%,%PECfg%
%PE_Cfg% is Nightman's cfg file on X: (RAM)
%PECfg% is Nightman's cfg file on Cd.

Reminding: The idea of seperating cfg files have an advantage, If bootimage seperated from cd (with some manual altering OR booting (wrongly) .iso with grub4dos), relevant organisation on CD's cfg will not be processed on such boot.
Win7PESE forgot or ignore this advantage to simplify (similar like Gena which never have), besides VistaPE-Capi & Leopard still uses.

I am still thinking.........




If We can not figure out %PECfg% - %PE_Cfg% thingy to unite,
than instead of
RunFromRam=Run,%API%,Run_FromRam%API_TYPE%
RunFromCD=Run,%API%,Run_FromCD%API_TYPE%
maybe better use
RunFromRam=Run,%API%,Run_FromRam%Capi_RF_TYPE%
RunFromCD=Run,%API%,Run_FromCD%Capi_RF_TYPE%

but how to organise set pecfg.......
still thinking to figure out a good solution,......

That is one of the reason I am asking time, flexible and simple solution for today and tomarrow's future shortcut arrangements :). Closing book of shortcut hopefully for a loooong time. Step by Step

I've done some more updating -- simplified some things in the script and now setting FreeShc.exe for boottime shortcut generation for Win7PE_SE is working.

Gena scripts: http://galapo.boot-land.net/temp/GenaShortcuts.rar
Win7PE_SE test package: http://galapo.boot-land.net/temp/Win7PE_SE-ShortcutTestPackage.rar

RunFromRam=Run,%API%,Run_FromRam%API_TYPE%
RunFromCD=Run,%API%,Run_FromCD%API_TYPE%
maybe better use
RunFromRam=Run,%API%,Run_FromRam%Capi_RF_TYPE%
RunFromCD=Run,%API%,Run_FromCD%Capi_RF_TYPE%

Yes, I guess that's the way forward.

But personally I don't see the real usefulness of splitting the loaders. If CD has become seprated from WIM image, then the system isn't running properly anyway, so what does it matter if there's some links not working?

Regards,
Galapo.

But personally I don't see the real usefulness of splitting the loaders. If CD has become seprated from WIM image, then the system isn't running properly anyway, so what does it matter if there's some links not working?

I agree with you, and JFX also agrees with you (following his project settings). Max and JonF, follows Nightman's organisation.......
Well, as projects, Gena and Win7PESE do not split, others do, I always feel better when hard communication not required.  ;):>.

Thanks for new scripts, time time time :>:>:>. 

I made some more adjustments:

Gena scripts: http://galapo.boot-land.net/temp/GenaShortcuts.rar
Win7PE_SE test package: http://galapo.boot-land.net/temp/Win7PE_SE-ShortcutTestPackage.rar

Regards,
Galapo.

Hi Galapo,

I checked Win7PE_SE test package, verrry nice work  , I will comment deeply later..... Step by Step.

Because organization pre-requirement of rumfromXXX for shortcut operation,  I study on runfromXXX for today.
(And I have questions to ask.....)
(Can not test here for some days, not at home again ;) but have spare time today)

Well, as you already see from win7PE_SE, pe2/3 projects haven't made much improvments on this area (VistaPE-Capi , Leopard same).
Well, we already know how far it can go  .....
I have no intention to make their job for them today,
 you know my "nature flow" princaple  ,
 but common variables are required for capi like in all cases,
so I again believe better start (continue) with right foot today.

Keeping backward compatibilty in mind,
[Run_FromRam2]
....
Set,%PE_Cfg%,%PECfg%

this pecfg line is demolishing all plans to make such arrangement on capi today.
As you said, way forward is the other way...
At least not as complex as shortcut thingy, besides I believe things I figured out will also help a lot on decreasing some number of lines...

I thought following design for script project that can be easly added to all projects

Code: [Select]

[Variables]
//%Capi_RF_TYPE% values can be: Script , 1 , 2
%Capi_RF_TYPE%=
//%Capi_RF_Script% , script to be used when %Capi_RF_TYPE% value is Script
%Capi_RF_Script%=
//%Capi_RF_Method% , method (section) selection for %Capi_RF_Script%
%Capi_RF_Method%=NmMethod

//Common variables to be used over all projects with script.project to increase sharing easly:
//Important: %PE_Programs_...% values are vital for overall shortcut operations of all projects
//%RFRamDrive%= General pe2/3 values X: OR #$psystemdrive#$p
%RFRamDrive%=
//%RFRamPrograms%= General pe2/3 value: Program Files
%RFRamPrograms%=
//%Target_Prog_RAM%= General pe2/3 value: %TargetDir%\%RFRamPrograms%
%Target_Prog_RAM%=
%PE_Programs_RAM%=%RFRamDrive%\%RFRamPrograms%
//%RFCDDrive%= General pe2/3 values Y: or #$pCDDrive#$p
%RFCDDrive%=
//%RFCDPrograms%= General pe2/3 value: Programs
%RFCDPrograms%=
//%Target_Prog_CD%= General pe2/3 value: %TargetDir%\%RFCDPrograms%
%Target_Prog_CD%=
%PE_Programs_CD%=%RFCDDrive%\%RFCDPrograms%

%CDON%=False
// %AtRAM% , %AtCD% values set to false or true by script with RunFromRam or RunFromCD api along with other things (default script.project value=False)
%AtRAM%=False
%AtCD%=False
// to set all scripts set to all ram or cd. (default script.project value=False)
%AtRAM_force%=False
%AtCD_force%=False

And following for Capi

Code: [Select]

[Variables]
....
RunFromRam=Run,%API%,Run_FromRam%Capi_RF_TYPE%
RunFromCD=Run,%API%,Run_FromCD%Capi_RF_TYPE%

[RunFromRam%Capi_RF_TYPE%]
Set,%Capi_RF_TYPE%,%API_Type%,Global
Run,%API%,RunFromRam%Capi_RF_TYPE%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

[RunFromRam]
Set,%Capi_RF_TYPE%,%API_Type%,Global
Run,%API%,RunFromRam%Capi_RF_TYPE%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

[RunFromCD%Capi_RF_TYPE%]
Set,%Capi_RF_TYPE%,%API_Type%,Global
Run,%API%,RunFromCD%Capi_RF_TYPE%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

[RunFromCD]
Set,%Capi_RF_TYPE%,%API_Type%,Global
Run,%API%,RunFromCD%Capi_RF_TYPE%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

[RunFromRamScript]
Run,%Capi_RF_Script%,RunFromRAM%Capi_RF_Method%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

[RunFromCDScript]
Run,%Capi_RFScript%,RunFromCD%Capi_RF_Method%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

having
%Capi_RF_Script%=%projectdir%\RunFrom.script
experimantal value

such a RunFrom.script for pe2/3 projects, for today, would be following:

Code: [Select]

[Run_FromRamNmMethod]
If,%AtRam%#1,Equal,FalseTrue,Begin
Set,%Target_Prog%,%Target_Prog_RAM%
Set,%PE_Programs%,%PE_Programs_RAM%
Set,%PE_Cfg%,%PECfg%
End

[Run_FromCDNmMethod]

with such organisation, script.project of Win7PE-SE, vistape-capi, Leopard would be

Code: [Select]

Win7PESE:

[Variables]
%Capi_RF_TYPE%=Script
%Capi_RF_Script%=%projectdir%\RunFrom.script
%Capi_RF_Method%=NmMethod
%RFRamDrive%=#$psystemdrive#$p
%RFRamPrograms%=Program Files
%Target_Prog_RAM%=%TargetDir%\%RFRamPrograms%
%PE_Programs_RAM%=%RFRamDrive%\%RFRamPrograms%
%RFCDDrive%=Y:
%RFCDPrograms%=Programs
%Target_Prog_CD%=%TargetDir%\%RFCDPrograms%
%PE_Programs_CD%=%RFCDDrive%\%RFCDPrograms%
%CDON%=False
%AtRAM%=False
%AtCD%=False
%AtRAM_force%=False
%AtCD_force%=False


VistaPECapi:

[Variables]
%Capi_RF_TYPE%=Script
%Capi_RF_Script%=%projectdir%\RunFrom.script
%Capi_RF_Method%=NmMethod
%RFRamDrive%=#$psystemdrive#$p
%RFRamPrograms%=Program Files
%Target_Prog_RAM%=%TargetDir%\%RFRamPrograms%
%PE_Programs_RAM%=%RFRamDrive%\%RFRamPrograms%
%RFCDDrive%=#$pCDDrive#$p
%RFCDPrograms%=Programs
%Target_Prog_CD%=%TargetDir%\%RFCDPrograms%
%PE_Programs_CD%=%RFCDDrive%\%RFCDPrograms%
%CDON%=False
%AtRAM%=False
%AtCD%=False
%AtRAM_force%=False
%AtCD_force%=False


Leopard:

[Variables]
%Capi_RF_TYPE%=Script
%Capi_RF_Script%=%projectdir%\RunFrom.script
%Capi_RF_Method%=NmMethod
%RFRamDrive%=X:
%RFRamPrograms%=Program Files
%Target_Prog_RAM%=%TargetDir%\%RFRamPrograms%
%PE_Programs_RAM%=%RFRamDrive%\%RFRamPrograms%
%RFCDDrive%=Y:
%RFCDPrograms%=Programs
%Target_Prog_CD%=%TargetDir%\%RFCDPrograms%
%PE_Programs_CD%=%RFCDDrive%\%RFCDPrograms%
%CDON%=False
%AtRAM%=False
%AtCD%=False
%AtRAM_force%=False
%AtCD_force%=False

Well, I know pe2/3 projects do not use runfromcd, and they do not have other things too... I believe above would simplify their future requirements and current Gena codes..

For Gena, no need to set
%Capi_RF_Script%=%projectdir%\RunFrom.script
since Gena is the only pe1 project that supports runfromram and runfromcd,
untill another pe1 capi project comes providing these options, keeping current lines in capi is ok. to me.
VistaPE-Capi and Win7PESE do not need to set %Capi_RF_Script% value too,
only Leopard because It is totally wrong having If,%ProjectName%,Equal,Leopard,... lines in capi, I have plans to remove all of them in time......
Overall, all need to set common values to gain advantages of a shortcut script ;), besides this also give them freedom to change runfromram's program-files folder, and drive, and location...... Many nice things comes :>.



Well, before going further, first things first:
*
I can not fully figure out %CDON% value yet, can you give a small introduction.

*
on Gena, I guess %PEDrive% indicates cd drive (env. variable etc etc.)
on VistaPE-Capi, %CDDrive% indicates cd drive (env. variable etc etc.)
on Win7PE-SE %CDDrive%=Y: used
on Leopard, %PE_Programs%=Y:\Programs

If I am right, can we get Gena closer to pe2/3 projects ?

*
on pe2/3 projects, mostly PEdrive=X: but not as variable yet ;). (left from old days of Nightman to be used with iniread,..script.project,main,pedrive)

above I define %RFRamDrive% individually to keep usage of different letters than PEdrive at hand

I believe, in Gena we should define %PEDrive%=#$psystemdrive#$p and ask others to define %PEDrive% the way they like (Leopard would be X:, others I am not sure...)

***
Well, another step forward to increase common things between projects, further requires your ideas :>:>.

See you :>.

Hi Lancelot,

Very sorry for the delay! I've been sick for a few days and getting back now.

I checked Win7PE_SE test package, verrry nice work  , I will comment deeply later..... Step by Step.

Ok, great.

I thought following design for script project that can be easly added to all projects

Code: [Select]

[Variables]
//%Capi_RF_TYPE% values can be: Script , 1 , 2
%Capi_RF_TYPE%=
//%Capi_RF_Script% , script to be used when %Capi_RF_TYPE% value is Script
%Capi_RF_Script%=
//%Capi_RF_Method% , method (section) selection for %Capi_RF_Script%
%Capi_RF_Method%=NmMethod

//Common variables to be used over all projects with script.project to increase sharing easly:
//Important: %PE_Programs_...% values are vital for overall shortcut operations of all projects
//%RFRamDrive%= General pe2/3 values X: OR #$psystemdrive#$p
%RFRamDrive%=
//%RFRamPrograms%= General pe2/3 value: Program Files
%RFRamPrograms%=
//%Target_Prog_RAM%= General pe2/3 value: %TargetDir%\%RFRamPrograms%
%Target_Prog_RAM%=
%PE_Programs_RAM%=%RFRamDrive%\%RFRamPrograms%
//%RFCDDrive%= General pe2/3 values Y: or #$pCDDrive#$p
%RFCDDrive%=
//%RFCDPrograms%= General pe2/3 value: Programs
%RFCDPrograms%=
//%Target_Prog_CD%= General pe2/3 value: %TargetDir%\%RFCDPrograms%
%Target_Prog_CD%=
%PE_Programs_CD%=%RFCDDrive%\%RFCDPrograms%

%CDON%=False
// %AtRAM% , %AtCD% values set to false or true by script with RunFromRam or RunFromCD api along with other things (default script.project value=False)
%AtRAM%=False
%AtCD%=False
// to set all scripts set to all ram or cd. (default script.project value=False)
%AtRAM_force%=False
%AtCD_force%=False

And following for Capi

Code: [Select]

[Variables]
....
RunFromRam=Run,%API%,Run_FromRam%Capi_RF_TYPE%
RunFromCD=Run,%API%,Run_FromCD%Capi_RF_TYPE%

[RunFromRam%Capi_RF_TYPE%]
Set,%Capi_RF_TYPE%,%API_Type%,Global
Run,%API%,RunFromRam%Capi_RF_TYPE%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

[RunFromRam]
Set,%Capi_RF_TYPE%,%API_Type%,Global
Run,%API%,RunFromRam%Capi_RF_TYPE%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

[RunFromCD%Capi_RF_TYPE%]
Set,%Capi_RF_TYPE%,%API_Type%,Global
Run,%API%,RunFromCD%Capi_RF_TYPE%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

[RunFromCD]
Set,%Capi_RF_TYPE%,%API_Type%,Global
Run,%API%,RunFromCD%Capi_RF_TYPE%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

[RunFromRamScript]
Run,%Capi_RF_Script%,RunFromRAM%Capi_RF_Method%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

[RunFromCDScript]
Run,%Capi_RFScript%,RunFromCD%Capi_RF_Method%,#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9

having
%Capi_RF_Script%=%projectdir%\RunFrom.script
experimantal value

such a RunFrom.script for pe2/3 projects, for today, would be following:

Code: [Select]

[Run_FromRamNmMethod]
If,%AtRam%#1,Equal,FalseTrue,Begin
Set,%Target_Prog%,%Target_Prog_RAM%
Set,%PE_Programs%,%PE_Programs_RAM%
Set,%PE_Cfg%,%PECfg%
End

[Run_FromCDNmMethod]

with such organisation, script.project of Win7PE-SE, vistape-capi, Leopard would be

Code: [Select]

Win7PESE:

[Variables]
%Capi_RF_TYPE%=Script
%Capi_RF_Script%=%projectdir%\RunFrom.script
%Capi_RF_Method%=NmMethod
%RFRamDrive%=#$psystemdrive#$p
%RFRamPrograms%=Program Files
%Target_Prog_RAM%=%TargetDir%\%RFRamPrograms%
%PE_Programs_RAM%=%RFRamDrive%\%RFRamPrograms%
%RFCDDrive%=Y:
%RFCDPrograms%=Programs
%Target_Prog_CD%=%TargetDir%\%RFCDPrograms%
%PE_Programs_CD%=%RFCDDrive%\%RFCDPrograms%
%CDON%=False
%AtRAM%=False
%AtCD%=False
%AtRAM_force%=False
%AtCD_force%=False


VistaPECapi:

[Variables]
%Capi_RF_TYPE%=Script
%Capi_RF_Script%=%projectdir%\RunFrom.script
%Capi_RF_Method%=NmMethod
%RFRamDrive%=#$psystemdrive#$p
%RFRamPrograms%=Program Files
%Target_Prog_RAM%=%TargetDir%\%RFRamPrograms%
%PE_Programs_RAM%=%RFRamDrive%\%RFRamPrograms%
%RFCDDrive%=#$pCDDrive#$p
%RFCDPrograms%=Programs
%Target_Prog_CD%=%TargetDir%\%RFCDPrograms%
%PE_Programs_CD%=%RFCDDrive%\%RFCDPrograms%
%CDON%=False
%AtRAM%=False
%AtCD%=False
%AtRAM_force%=False
%AtCD_force%=False


Leopard:

[Variables]
%Capi_RF_TYPE%=Script
%Capi_RF_Script%=%projectdir%\RunFrom.script
%Capi_RF_Method%=NmMethod
%RFRamDrive%=X:
%RFRamPrograms%=Program Files
%Target_Prog_RAM%=%TargetDir%\%RFRamPrograms%
%PE_Programs_RAM%=%RFRamDrive%\%RFRamPrograms%
%RFCDDrive%=Y:
%RFCDPrograms%=Programs
%Target_Prog_CD%=%TargetDir%\%RFCDPrograms%
%PE_Programs_CD%=%RFCDDrive%\%RFCDPrograms%
%CDON%=False
%AtRAM%=False
%AtCD%=False
%AtRAM_force%=False
%AtCD_force%=False

All seems like a good idea to me. You've put some thought into this!

Well, I know pe2/3 projects do not use runfromcd, and they do not have other things too... I believe above would simplify their future requirements and current Gena codes..

I agree -- this provides a workable solution and allows for flexibility.

*
I can not fully figure out %CDON% value yet, can you give a small introduction.

Hmmm, I can't figure out exactly what it's all doing either.

I think here's what's happened:
1) Pedro initially coded RunFromCD I think and used the variable %CDON% so that shortcut generation etc. would know.
2) Then I coded RunFromRAM and updated RunFromCD a bit using the type of variable naming from PE2/3 projects. But %CDON% was still left over.

on Gena, I guess %PEDrive% indicates cd drive (env. variable etc etc.)
on VistaPE-Capi, %CDDrive% indicates cd drive (env. variable etc etc.)
on Win7PE-SE %CDDrive%=Y: used
on Leopard, %PE_Programs%=Y:\Programs

If I am right, can we get Gena closer to pe2/3 projects ?

Yes, we can. Gena can ditch %PEDrive% variable and use %CDDrive% variable, I am happy with that. Do you want me to implement and update test package?

Thanks for all your work on this -- we're gradually making step-by-step progress.

Regards,
Galapo.

Hi Galapo,

Very sorry for the delay! I've been sick for a few days and getting back now.

Health comes first, I hope you get better soon. 
Sleep well  and get your strength back, we are no in rush :>
Till you get better, I can spend time on preparing more good news to you which is waiting as a verrrry good surprise :>:>.

Yes, we can. Gena can ditch %PEDrive% variable and use %CDDrive% variable, I am happy with that. Do you want me to implement and update test package?

Better you do, but instead of ditching %PEDrive%, better following in script.project
%PEDrive%=#$psystemdrive#$p
%CDDrive%=#$pCDDrive#$p

I think here's what's happened:
1) Pedro initially coded RunFromCD I think and used the variable %CDON% so that shortcut generation etc. would know.
2) Then I coded RunFromRAM and updated RunFromCD a bit using the type of variable naming from PE2/3 projects. But %CDON% was still left over.

I guess I understand the goal clearer now 

I have some confusions, before going forward lets clear things
I guess* having double values like Atxxx
%AtRAM_Force%
%AtRAM%
%AtCD_Force%
%AtCD%
is to avoid cases where a project not define these values ????
If so, I believe this is not needed at all, I try to speed up with predefined common values, but maybe I am missing sth....

To me
%AtRAM%
%AtCD%
are enough to define runfromxxx situation.

and for "force all to ram or cd", changing %AtRAM% OR %AtCD% value to True
and
%Target_Prog% to %Target_Prog_CD% or %Target_Prog_RAM%
%PE_Programs% to %PE_Programs_CD% or %PE_Programs_RAM%

would be enough for shortcut creation and all other api commands.

with this organisation, I have not see the advantage of having %CDON% , if required %AtRAM% or %AtCD% give the required info to any script.

Well, maybe I am totally missing a point where %AtRAM_Force% %AtCD_Force% are musts to have in a project.???

Sleep well, everything can wait untill you get better, and    smile better.
See you

Better you do, but instead of ditching %PEDrive%, better following in script.project
%PEDrive%=#$psystemdrive#$p
%CDDrive%=#$pCDDrive#$p

Ok, done:
Gena scripts: http://galapo.boot-land.net/temp/GenaShortcuts.rar
Win7PE_SE test package: http://galapo.boot-land.net/temp/Win7PE_SE-ShortcutTestPackage.rar

I haven't made the adjustments to script.project as they're not needed for our testing. We'll add them later before release.

I have some confusions, before going forward lets clear things
I guess* having double values like Atxxx
%AtRAM_Force%
%AtRAM%
%AtCD_Force%
%AtCD%
is to avoid cases where a project not define these values ????
If so, I believe this is not needed at all, I try to speed up with predefined common values, but maybe I am missing sth....

No, there're needed for these reasons:

The %XXX_Force% variables are used to forcibly set all programs to either run from RAM or CD.

The other two variables are needed for where an application individually set to run from either RAM or CD.

Probably %AtRAM% and %AtCD% could be combined to a single %ProgRunFromLoc% variable which would either be set to 'RAM' or 'CD'.

Probably too %AtRAM_Force% and %AtCD_Force% could be combined to a single %ProgRunFromForce% which would either be set to 'True' or 'False'.

Regards,
Galapo.

Hi Galapo,

I feel no need combine....
I believe If,Not,%AtRAM%%AtCD%,FalseFalse .... etc. ... will do the combination naturally

Well, I am pretty unsure about %xxx_Force% ... because of not getting an example in mind for now, but I strongly feel you are right.

further I have an additional idea %Capi_RF_TYPE% , "None"
in capi with 2 empty sections
[RunFromRamNone]
[RunFromCDNone]
runfromxxx would automatically (and quickly) disabled ;) IF required ( IF a new project born and with step by step development can not have these options functional for now , or IF a project do not want these options, or IF one decide to disable runfromxxx at all ;) )


summerizing:
post 45 adjustments
+
So far I understand, %CDON% not needed in capi ?
and with above adjustment %include_Folder% will not needed too I guess ?
+
%Capi_RF_TYPE% , "None"


I guess this close the book of runfromxxx , one step forward?

IF so, give me a day to prepare a capi to your taste ;)

Well, I am pretty unsure about %xxx_Force% ... because of not getting an example in mind for now, but I strongly feel you are right.

This is the force options that ProgramFilesPE provides and some similar setting in VistaPE.

So far I understand, %CDON% not needed in capi ?

well, currently it is still needed. Just that CAPI needs to be rewritten to remove it. Instead of using %CDON%, %AtCD% could be used I think.

and with above adjustment %include_Folder% will not needed too I guess ?

Probably not needed.

Regards,
Galapo.

 

Give me tomorrow (max. +1) to work on,
in fact I should be much away now in normal schedule, only I could not sleep :).

After we finish with this, we can easly go further steps, I really feel excited tidying up a lot of mess having stronger steps on this shortcut road. I feel In the end everything will run verrrry smoothly :>:>.
 

As discussed over icq, scripts have been updated to get rid of some BuildModel mess.

Gena scripts: http://galapo.boot-land.net/temp/GenaShortcuts.rar
Win7PE_SE test package: http://galapo.boot-land.net/temp/Win7PE_SE-ShortcutTestPackage.rar

Regards,
Galapo.

Just making a note here that with the changes made to BuildModel stuff, now RegFactory is serverely broken and will require quite a bit of time to straighten out.

Regards,
Galapo.

Hi Galapo,

Well checking RF, I feel the reason Fxscrpt use hardcoded path name since it was (to me wrongly) written hardcoded on project info previously.

All can be fixed easly in time, time..... well first things first, I need to check runfromxxx and shortcut thingies first, I feel fixing RF will not be a big problem when time comes :>.

See you.

Hi Galapo,

I was checking and implementing runfromxxx,

%AtCD% & %AtRam% values never changed by capi

Following Program Files PE script,

I guess when [Run_FromCD .... processed
when %AtRAM_force% not true
Set,%AtCD%,True would give the required signal to other sections like shortcut creation ???

I guess when [Run_FromRam .... processed,
when %AtCD_force% not true
Set,%AtRam%,True would give the required signal to other sections like shortcut creation ???

I will attach a prebeta capi to current post without this changes in some close time...

edit:
*
here is a package including prebeta capi + minor modification in tweaks.script & 6 ShortcutsCentro.script
http://www.mediafire.com/?fp02m60jft6fhj2
ps: I did not make any Gena adjustment for runfromxxx, only preparations, above question will hopefully clear....
*
here is prebeta official capi for gena server
http://www.mediafire.com/?arp9oa9p1ypbw99
+
I updated script.project of Gena server, only preparations.
+
Since additions are backward compatible, there will be no problem for any project except 1,
Only Leopard should make a fix since If,%projectname%,Leopard ... removed from runfromram2 section,
I added [Run_FromRamNmMethod] section using new variables to suffer from possible annoyance of Max,
but since I have above doubts, I decide not to put on gena server.



Well, for a while I was sick or busy, it may go that way on following days,
trying to do my best, very sorry for delays.

I guess when [Run_FromCD .... processed
when %AtRAM_force% not true
Set,%AtCD%,True would give the required signal to other sections like shortcut creation ???

Yes, I think that's right. %AtCD% is the main one.

I guess when [Run_FromRam .... processed,
when %AtCD_force% not true
Set,%AtRam%,True would give the required signal to other sections like shortcut creation ???

Yes, I think that's also right.

Well, for a while I was sick or busy, it may go that way on following days,
trying to do my best, very sorry for delays.

Sorry to hear that you got sick. I'm still not entirely over my cold either. Getting there...

Thanks for the scripts. I'll have a look later on if possible.

Regards,
Galapo.

*
here is a package including prebeta capi + minor modification in tweaks.script & 6 ShortcutsCentro.script
http://www.mediafire.com/?fp02m60jft6fhj2
ps: I did not make any Gena adjustment for runfromxxx, only preparations, above question will hopefully clear....
*
here is prebeta official capi for gena server
http://www.mediafire.com/?arp9oa9p1ypbw99

Hi Lancelot,

The two CAPI scripts differ in the packages. The one here http://www.mediafire.com/?arp9oa9p1ypbw99 seems to be an older on still using '#$pPEDrive#$p' and '!PS'.

Regards,
Galapo

Hi Galapo,

I guess you already see definations should be opposite ;) I guess I were to sleepy and mixed last night.

http://www.mediafire.com/?fp02m60jft6fhj2 is prebeta official capi for gena server

http://www.mediafire.com/?arp9oa9p1ypbw99
is modification of your last package of current topic
http://galapo.boot-land.net/temp/GenaShortcuts.rar

and yes they both contain !PS at [Add_Auto_Run1]
but no pedrive


give me time to implement %AtCD% , sorry for creating confusions ...

Hi Galapo,

here what I do:
I uploaded current state of Gena v128 to keep as reference,
than uploaded all shortcut package to server,
As a too tidy archiver (me, I know my bad personality ;) ) it became really hard to make progress after many changes....
I have a set of things to do, but better you check things first.

In order not to cause confusions to other projects (since link given inside capi and on capi update button)
I keep Common_Api.script as it is
I temporarly added
Common_Api_Pre.script ---> this is transition one I prepare to easly test with other projects, it naturally has old adjustments for apitype1..
Common_Api_Test.script ---> this is the one to be improved.

Currently Gena uses Common_Api_Test.script as %api% (2 scripts temporarly changed for that goal)

compared to previous package, only capi changed:
* %CDON% replaced to %AtCD%
* added Set,%AtCD%,False and Set,%AtRam%,True lines
* [Add_Auto_Run1] !PS replaced to !!CDDrive!!

to ease finding what I did, first compare
http://www.mediafire.com/?arp9oa9p1ypbw99
with
http://galapo.boot-land.net/temp/GenaShortcuts.rar
than
compare capi inside http://www.mediafire.com/?arp9oa9p1ypbw99
with Common_Api_Test.script on server


Well all above capi adjustments are temporary, in the end all will be set back to single Common_Api.script after making things....

Now we can easly use Gena server as before for updates  ,
which to me also will help a lot on implementing things to overall scripts, I hope you like this organisation too.
(If not , archive is in compressed folder)

For now better I wait you so you can check things etc. etc. than I can ask & do things etc. etc

Hi Lancelot,

I like you idea of separating and being able to update via the server to keep things organised and less confusing.

I have yet done much testing, but I've uploaded a couple of updates though.

Regards,
Galapo.