Windows CE CAB ceload - copy file to root file system

I have never been able to get a file to copy to root on my 320 (it's the only hardware I've had to test on).

I can try something if you want me to, but I've not managed to find any combination of directive file that doesn't error or hang on the 320.

It might be that it works on 2.11 and above or 3.00 and above but not 2.00? I can't test that though. If it is the case, I can patch CAB Maker to prevent the use of Root on CE 2.00 builds.

I tried on CE 3.0 (MobilePro 790 on MIPS) and I get the same error as CE 2.0.

Two more things to work on after the root think, unless we just chalk it up to being fixed in CE4.x, but unavailable in 3.0 or lower?

-ARM720 gives me an error on the 900 running 4.2 "This Application cannot run on this device type"

And I need to do further testing but when I block .cabs from running on "Handheld PC 2.0
H/PC Pro 3.0 & HPC2000
Palm-Sized PC 1.0/1.1/1.2
Pocket PC 2000
Pocket PC 2002
SmartPhone 2002"
the 900 throws an error but lets me proceed with the install. I suspect the culprit is when I check HPC2000 to block, maybe the 900 doesn't like that?

Edited by torch 2023-09-06 5:05 PM

I am not sure what else to try for the root copy, other than repeating what I already tried on 2.00 using 2.11 and 3.00.

I wasn't aware that CE 4 responded to the Jupiter block flag. Try it without but with all the others enabled and see what happens?

Block Only Jupiter / Block all :
Unsupported Device type but lets me proceed

Block all except Jupiter
Likes the install - no warning

FYI these cabs I selected 4.2 as min OS

Also for issue#2:
What is correct processor flag for 900
Should it be ARM 720? Or only SA1100

Edited by torch 2023-09-06 7:29 PM

Wait, why are you using ARM720 on a MP900? It's a PXA255 processor. Use SA1110.

It is a CE4 900 isn't it, not a HPC2000 one? lol

Oh for the final Npopuk cabs I used SA1100 fyi. Because I never got arm720 working.
I was under the impression the processor flag for the 900 was ARM720.

Anyway, now I know. Se we can cross that issue out.

Going back to Jupiter : my 900 is running 4.2

We could do with someone with a SigIII and a CE5 device to test the same jupiter flagged CAB, if so, I'll add it to the CAB maker UI that it blocks 4.0,4.2,4.2 and not (?) 5/6

My SigIII should arrive in a few weeks. I’ll be able to find out about 4.1.

Moreover, I’ll try the Jupiter block on CE6 and follow up.

About CE6: I did some research on that thin client the t5540. It turns out it most likely has CE6R2 not R3. I mean I’m still not 100% sure nor know how to fully check it. I’m just going off of the Google results I was finding.
Is there a way to change that without borking up my existing compatibility entries ?
Or maybe just send me a list and I’ll add compatibility data manually after over again?

Or we just smile and leave it?

Good to see a Sig 3 will finally be in your home, torch.

You need to find a file that exposes the build number in its strings table.

6.0 RTM was 6.0.1937.0

I do not know the others.

Anything dated after
25/08/2009 is likely R3
09/10/2007 is likely R2
30/04/2007 is likely 6.0 SP1
07/09/2006 is likely 6.0 RTM

Sig III is even more confusing lol. I did CEF/Block Jupiter
Cab installed correctly, no complaints whatsoever about device types like the 900 had

Also here's the Sigmarion III path list (I used Google Translate for the Japanese, the original JP language is in the .txt attachment)


Thank you! It's tiny but brilliant

Edited by torch 2023-09-13 8:16 AM




Attachments
----------------
pathlist.txt (0KB - 0 downloads)

Well, that doesn't give us any clarity on what to do, but thanks for the readout.

TBH it isn't necessary to block Jupiter if your base OS is 4.0 anyway as the consumer will get the error based on trying to run a CAB intended for 4.00+ on 2.11 anyway.

The flags are really designed to prevent running PsPC apps on H/PC or vice versa etc.

Sorry about that. I was just following this so we had closure.

I understand now.

Not at all, if it had worked, it would be an easy fix, but if it does not work on 4.1, or is inconsistent then I am not sure it is sensible to change the UI at all, unless you have a better thought?

Agreed. I don’t think further work is necessary other than perhaps blocking the root file copy if the OS is Windows CE 3.0 or older.
Before you do that though, I need to see if Windows CE 4.1 lets me do a cab to install
to root first.