Eagle 6.1.0 Unattended Install

"ECE Help" <noreply-94801@element14.com> wrote in message

news:1127288894.51331227332439.JavaMail.jive@flmspu-csapp-02.premierfarnell.com...

>I maintain the installs on our University owned machines. I need to deploy

>this software to around 50 machines, and will periodically need to update

>this to newer versions. I have the license and the installer already, but

>I'm running into issues automating the install process.

 

I noticed that your self extracting exe unzips and then runs

"bin/eagle.exe --setup", which is fine, but I'm not able to figure out how

to pass any of the inputs for scripted installs. It appears that all

the --setup command does, is take a couple of inputs, and then copies

itself into the target location, and create two files: eagle.key, and

uninstall.lst.

 

I have a feeling that I could install it onto one computer, and then copy

the install onto other computers, while adding the 4 Registry keys, and

the 5 start menu shortcuts, but I'd rather do it through officially

supported means.

 

Is there any method provided by CadSoft for unattended/silent installs?

 

Thanks,

ECEHelp

 

This has nothing to do with your problem and is a bit off topic, but a word

to the wise:

If you don't want to hate yourself later (and you do want the students at

your institution to like you) do not waste time with version 6.1.0.

Take a look at the bug fix list for v6.1.2 and maybe you'll understand why I

say.

Am 10.03.2012 09:21, schrieb Brett Holden:

"ECE Help"<noreply-94801@element14.com>  wrote in message

news:1127288894.51331227332439.JavaMail.jive@flmspu-csapp-02.premierfarnell.com...

>> I maintain the installs on our University owned machines. I need to deploy

>> this software to around 50 machines, and will periodically need to update

>> this to newer versions. I have the license and the installer already, but

>> I'm running into issues automating the install process.

>>

>> I noticed that your self extracting exe unzips and then runs

>> "bin/eagle.exe --setup", which is fine, but I'm not able to figure out how

>> to pass any of the inputs for scripted installs. It appears that all

>> the --setup command does, is take a couple of inputs, and then copies

>> itself into the target location, and create two files: eagle.key, and

>> uninstall.lst.

>>

>> I have a feeling that I could install it onto one computer, and then copy

>> the install onto other computers, while adding the 4 Registry keys, and

>> the 5 start menu shortcuts, but I'd rather do it through officially

>> supported means.

>>

>> Is there any method provided by CadSoft for unattended/silent installs?

>>

>> Thanks,

>> ECEHelp

>>

>

This has nothing to do with your problem and is a bit off topic, but a word

to the wise:

 

  If you don't want to hate yourself later (and you do want the students at

your institution to like you) do not waste time with version 6.1.0.

 

Take a look at the bug fix list for v6.1.2 and maybe you'll understand why I

say.

 

>

Make it 6.1.3

--

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards

Joern Paschedag

>>

>> This has nothing to do with your problem and is a bit off topic, but

>> a word to the wise:

>>

>>   If you don't want to hate yourself later (and you do want the

>> students at your institution to like you) do not waste time with

>> version 6.1.0.

>>

>> Take a look at the bug fix list for v6.1.2 and maybe you'll

>> understand why I say.

>>

>>

Make it 6.1.3

 

Joern Paschedag

I recommend not getting involved with version 6 right now. Stay with v5.12

As a generalisation, those  currently reporting faults with v6 are low time

users. The longer time experienced users are currently not posting defects.

I suspect that they are, like me,  not wasting time with v6 until it reaches

a standard that justifies the time it takes to evaluate it properly. When

that group starts to exercise v6 expect many more issues to be found.

Warren

--

Viewed / responded via the newsgroup at

news.cadsoft.de

Am 08.03.2012 18:21, schrieb ECE Help:

I have a feeling that I could install it onto one computer, and then copy the install onto other computers, while adding the 4 Registry keys, and the 5 start menu shortcuts, but I'd rather do it through officially supported means.

As a matter of fact, that is EXACTLY what can be done (we do this since

years):

   1. Install it on ONE machine (your reference).

   2. Afterwards, just deploy EAGLE by copying all the reference

      files to other machines (prefereably into a folder where

      the user has WRITE access, otherwise there'll be problems

      when running EAGLE later).

   3. (Cannot be avoided) When starting EAGLE the first time, every

      user must enter your license key.

   -

   4. Adding registry keys is ONLY necessary if the users like to

      be able to double-click on EAGLE files to open them.

   5. Same is valid for the menu shortcuts.

This even works for multiple operating systems: All EAGLE files for

Windows, Linux and Mac can reside on ONE system (we use a samba server

here), even without any useless duplication of libraries etc.

Additionally, in order to keep already existing EAGLE installations

up-to-date, I can provide you with an update program (for all three OSs)

that the users can start themselves: This program can check a (remote)

server for your reference installation and then update all local files

with newer ones from the reference repository.

If you're interested in this, send me a valid e-mail address, and I can

give you more details.

Andreas Weidner

On 3/10/2012 2:55 PM, Warren Brayshaw wrote:

  When

that group starts to exercise v6 expect many more issues to be found.

 

Warren

Why not just start exercising V6 and get those issues found out and

corrected. Our developers are working tirelessly to get bugs corrected

and fixed, their goal is to get EAGLE back to the robustness it's known

for as soon as possible.

How can that goal be met if the experienced users don't attack V6. I

think it's a disservice to the EAGLE community in general not to

exercise it.

I'm not saying to risk your critical work if you don't feel comfortable,

but use it, make some hobby projects with it exercise it. If you compare

6.0.0 to the latest beta 6.1.3 I think you'll be able to see the amount

of effort that has gone to bring it back to a level that "justifies"

it's use and the commitment towards are users to produce a product that

helps them get work done.

This is not a personal shot at anyone, but I've noticed a similar

sentiment in other posts, and I just don't feel it's productive to

getting EAGLE back to the robustness we all expect and need.

Just my 2 cents,

Jorge Garcia

On 3/12/2012 2:10 PM, Jorge Garcia wrote:

On 3/10/2012 2:55 PM, Warren Brayshaw wrote:

When

>> that group starts to exercise v6 expect many more issues to be found.

>>

>> Warren

 

Why not just start exercising V6 and get those issues found out and

corrected. Our developers are working tirelessly to get bugs corrected

and fixed, their goal is to get EAGLE back to the robustness it's known

for as soon as possible.

 

How can that goal be met if the experienced users don't attack V6. I

think it's a disservice to the EAGLE community in general not to

exercise it.

 

I'm not saying to risk your critical work if you don't feel comfortable,

but use it, make some hobby projects with it exercise it. If you compare

6.0.0 to the latest beta 6.1.3 I think you'll be able to see the amount

of effort that has gone to bring it back to a level that "justifies"

it's use and the commitment towards are users to produce a product that

helps them get work done.

 

This is not a personal shot at anyone, but I've noticed a similar

sentiment in other posts, and I just don't feel it's productive to

getting EAGLE back to the robustness we all expect and need.

 

Just my 2 cents,

 

Jorge Garcia

Sorry for the typos, I humbly request that these be looked over.

Best Regards,

Jorge Garcia

On 3/12/12 2:10 PM, Jorge Garcia wrote:

On 3/10/2012 2:55 PM, Warren Brayshaw wrote:

When

>> that group starts to exercise v6 expect many more issues to be found.

>>

>> Warren

 

Why not just start exercising V6 and get those issues found out and

corrected. Our developers are working tirelessly to get bugs corrected

and fixed, their goal is to get EAGLE back to the robustness it's known

for as soon as possible.

I had my share of problems with v6 but have completed two designs with

v6.1.3 and I think it's good enough to stick with. It still has some UI

quirks on Mac OS X (screen "jumps" when switching from board to

schematic, some toolbar buttons are not highlighted when selected) but

it's usable and generates good data as far as I can tell.

So from my point of view, v6 has "turned the corner" towards stability

and I'm going to start all new designs with it.

Andrew.

Il 12/03/2012 19:10, Jorge Garcia ha scritto:

Why not just start exercising V6 and get those issues found out and

corrected. Our developers are working tirelessly to get bugs corrected

and fixed, their goal is to get EAGLE back to the robustness it's known

for as soon as possible.

Just to understand, no polemics at all.

Why sell v6 with all that bugs? I can't believe they didn't know before!

You might discover most of them after few minutes of normal use.

IMHO the goal should be release EAGLE versions when they have the

robustness they're known for, rather than "to get them back to".

Of course there will always be some bugs, in any applications. But it

would be better if Cadsoft had released the v6.1.3 at first, after some

tests.

We're talking about a professional application, not a flash game

So, the question is: why?

Marco

On 3/13/12 4:44 AM, Marco Trapanese wrote:

Il 12/03/2012 19:10, Jorge Garcia ha scritto:

 

>> Why not just start exercising V6 and get those issues found out and

>> corrected. Our developers are working tirelessly to get bugs corrected

>> and fixed, their goal is to get EAGLE back to the robustness it's known

>> for as soon as possible.

>

Just to understand, no polemics at all.

Why sell v6 with all that bugs? I can't believe they didn't know before!

You might discover most of them after few minutes of normal use.

 

IMHO the goal should be release EAGLE versions when they have the

robustness they're known for, rather than "to get them back to".

 

Of course there will always be some bugs, in any applications. But it

would be better if Cadsoft had released the v6.1.3 at first, after some

tests.

 

We're talking about a professional application, not a flash game

So, the question is: why?

 

Marco

 

To be fair to Cadsoft, they did do a lot of beta tests (conducted

through this newsgroup) and in exchange for providing a free look ahead

they expected testing and feedback. They got some, but not enough to

make 6.0.0 as robust as possible. This is not new...the same thing

happened with Eagle 5.0.0. IIRC it wasn't really "good" until about

version 5.6.0 or so.

I don't fault them for this. If you look at the bugs that are being

fixed, most "light usage" designers would never notice them, or similar

bugs in other programs would be equally tolerated by the public. This is

the niche that Eagle fills: a cut above freeware/open source/web-based

schematic editors, in which what you get is what you get and you don't

get to complain about the bugs, and a big $$$ cut below the big names in

which you expect glitzy polished behavior (and I bet they have their

share of bugs too, probably not acknowledged or supported in a newsgroup).

Those of us that have been around since v3 know how this works and do

not hold Cadsoft to an unreasonable standard of quality given the cost

of the tool: you treat version x.0.0 as a "second beta", kick it around

a little bit, wait until the flurry of changes dies down to a low

murmur, then consider it stable.

Getting a cross-platform CAD program to have 0 bugs costs a lot of time

and money, and personally I'm happy that Cadsoft spends LESS time and

money up front and charges LESS money for the tools as a result, as long

as they get the program to EVENTUALLY have as close to 0 bugs as

possible in a reasonable amount of time, while relying on customers to

a) tolerate the bugs, and b) report the bugs.

Andrew.

Am 13.03.2012 14:20, schrieb Andrew Sterian:

To be fair to Cadsoft, they did do a lot of beta tests (conducted

through this newsgroup) and in exchange for providing a free look ahead

they expected testing and feedback. They got some, but not enough to

make 6.0.0 as robust as possible. This is not new...the same thing

happened with Eagle 5.0.0. IIRC it wasn't really "good" until about

version 5.6.0 or so.

Exactly. Version 5.6 was the one that was OK enough to let loose on our

students here (before that, lots of ULPs that people here rely on didn't

work properly due to bugs). For people NOT used to special ULPs, earlier

versions surely also did their job.

Those of us that have been around since v3 know how this works and do

not hold Cadsoft to an unreasonable standard of quality given the cost

of the tool: you treat version x.0.0 as a "second beta", kick it around

a little bit, wait until the flurry of changes dies down to a low

murmur, then consider it stable.

Yes, but this works only for die-hard customers like us who KNOW that.

People new to EAGLE and checking out whether it's worth buying DON'T

know that and might shy away from buying given an unusual amount of bugs.

Andreas Weidner