Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
It is not a permissions problem. I had no 'access denied''s in my filemon trace. I'm not sure if you read through the entire message, but it appears to be an installer problem. When you run the RunPostInst custom action, it is being extracted to a temp directory and run from there(which is exactly what the documentation says it will do). This is because it is a type 2 custom action. If you change it to a type 18 custom action, it uses the postinst.exe installed in the <program files>\CVSNT directory and works as expected. (you also have to change the source to postinst.exe from Postinst.exe). The log items in my message actually show this. It is also not a permissions issue becasue the problem doesn't show up if the 7.1 runtime DLL's are in the system directory. It is executing postinst.exe in a different directory than you are expecting it to, but it is a simple change to resolve. I tested the suggested change on 2K3 and it worked like a champ. I'm pulling down XP images also and will verify the fix on those OS's as well. I'm trying to convince folks at my work place to to move to CVSNT from VSS. Having an install that doesn't complete, even if it is 'OK', doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the product. Admittedly, I've given up on products when they didn't install, but I really want this to work. Thanks, Casey "Tony Hoyle" <tmh at nodomain.org> wrote in message news:d346ma$gs6$1 at paris.nodomain.org... > Casey Schmit wrote: >> Here's the full skinny, with some additional info. I just installed >> Windows Server 2003, a completely fresh install. The only role defined >> is an > > That explains it... there's a permission problem on first install on > win2003 - just ignore it, since the post install only applies to upgrades > anyway (which work OK). > > On other platforms this works OK as they don't have the same kind of > locked down permissions that win2003 does. > > Tony