search

majkinetor / au-packages

Chocolatey packages by majkinetor
https://gist.github.com/majkinetor/a700c70b8847b29ebb1c918d47ee4eb1
GNU General Public License v2.0
66 stars 45 forks source link

(cpu-z.portable) Error on install #172

Closed Hlsgs closed 3 years ago

Hlsgs commented 3 years ago

When trying to install the cpu-z.portable package using Choco that is portable itself, I get the following:

ERROR: Cannot bind argument to parameter 'Path' because it is null.
majkinetor commented 3 years ago

Try now: cinst cpu-z.portable --version 1.94.0.20201209 -force

Hlsgs commented 3 years ago

Try now: cinst cpu-z.portable --version 1.94.0.20201209 -force

That works. But why is it only grabbing only the x64 version and not both x64 and x32, like a "normal" CPU-Z portable download?

majkinetor commented 3 years ago

There were never 2 versions, it was just an illusion :)

majkinetor commented 3 years ago

This is from older one:

image

Hlsgs commented 3 years ago

The official portable download for 1.94 comes with two binaries: cpuz_x32.exe SHA1: CEDDFDC60EDBD0D5CE24FBA12752F42E137BBD37 cpuz_x64.exe SHA1: 111D5ADE416485D1F367815592CFC5DE6C52D9CA

Your package has just: cpuz.exe SHA1: 38D895D1AA2C12D618275EE02DF926A7FF53C079 so it's neither of the above.

What's going on here?

majkinetor commented 3 years ago

The other one gets removed the same as before, that wasn't changed:

image

Hlsgs commented 3 years ago

Hmm, two questions then:

  1. Why would it's hash change from cpuz_x64.exe jsut by moving and renaming it?
  2. Why not leave both? If it's portable why shouldn't it work on an x86 OS too, in case of dual-boot, for example?
majkinetor commented 3 years ago

To have other arch is pointless as its not on the PATH, most users would never find it or know how to execute it. Alternative is to shim by full name which is stupid as most people don't need 2 arch.

Do you have a problem or you just nitpick ?

majkinetor commented 3 years ago

Why would it's hash change from cpuz_x64.exe jsut by moving and renaming it?

It wouldn't :)

Hlsgs commented 3 years ago

To have other arch is pointless as its not on the PATH, most users would never find it or know how to execute it. Alternative is to shim by full name which is stupid as most people don't need 2 arch.

Do you have a problem or you just nitpick ?

I'm doing some fairly convoluted stuff with simlinks to automate the creation of USB sticks with tools I use, so not nitpicking, but far from your avereage usage scenario. I'll just rely on x64 as I will hopefully not be seeing many 32bit machines moving forward. So thanks for the fix and clarifications.

Why would it's hash change from cpuz_x64.exe jsut by moving and renaming it?

It wouldn't :)

You're right. Just downlaoded a fresh copy and they match. Authors probably changed the files without altering the version. Wouldn't be unheard of :)

majkinetor commented 3 years ago

I'll just rely on x64 as I will hopefully not be seeing many 32bit machines moving forward. So thanks for the fix and clarifications.

Indeed, its better to put a nail in the coffin instead.

Authors probably changed the files without altering the version.

They do that on cpu-z all the time. Thats the reason updater checks remote checksum each time, besides version. When you see FIX version its silent update:

https://github.com/majkinetor/au-packages/blob/master/cpu-z.portable/update.ps1#L24-L30

As you can see more silent then regular updates:

image

Hlsgs commented 3 years ago

I see. Thanks again for you efforts and for the explainers!

majkinetor commented 3 years ago

No problem m8. Thanks for reporting this.