Installshield The Dll Being Called Encountered A Problem: Tips and Tricks

In most cases, InstallShield.Interop.Stg.dll DLL file problems are due to the file missing or being corrupted (by malware / virus) in the InstallShield file store. Although annoying, these issues can usually be easily remedied through replacing the problem DLL file. After the problem file is replaced, running a registry scan can help clean up any invalid InstallShield.Interop.Stg.dll, file extension, or other file path references which could have been affected from a previous malware infection.

Corrupted and missing InstallShield.Interop.Stg.dll files create most InstallShield.Interop.Stg.dll-related errors. Commonly, InstallShield problems happen due to InstallShield.Interop.Stg.dll being an externally-sourced file.

Installshield The Dll Being Called Encountered A Problem

Download File

The really weird thing is that installing Visual Studio on the target machine makes the problem go away. My best guess is that there is some underlying dependency that's not being set up on the target machine by my msi but which installing VisualStudio does include, thus resolving the dependency for SQLite. That's a total guess though.

That was it. A VC Redist was actually already being included in the install but it was an older version than the one required to support the version of SQLite we're now using. I was able to look up the version of SQLite version we're using and simply read the description from the page you linked to see what the problem was. I've simply included the correct redist in the package and everything's now zipping along just fine.

My problem(s) are that I'm guessing that the libc.dll reference is being generated by the Threading.CancellationToken.None usage; is there any way of finding out what dlls are actually required by what reference.

If you are using Norton AntiVirus and running Working Papers, you may receive a warning from Norton of a malicious script being detected. This warning tells users that a program running is creating documents on their system. Since this is how Working Papers generates many of its files, Norton AntiVirus identifies Working Papers as a potential problem. Within this message, the user is provided with 5 (five) options. The first time that the message appears, the user should select the final of the five options - "Authorize this Script." to tell Norton that Working Papers is a trusted application. This prevents any future alerts when using the program. Note the activities by the FileSystemObject continue to be monitored, so any worms using this object will be detected still.

Scan your script file to make sure each return statement is encountered only after a call statement. Fix the problem and recompile your script.Error 426Setup is unable to find the installation script file: script_filename.Setup.exe was unable to find a script file named Setup.ins or, optionally, another script file that was specified on the command line.Error 427Setup is unable to load the installation script file: script_filename. The script may be from a previous version or corrupted.

1) Created a function in Setup.rul called RemoveOldServiceKeys().2) Created an "export prototype" statement for the function.3) Compiled Setup.rul to make sure my syntax was correct.4) Right-clicked on "Custom Actions" and chose "New".5) Named my action "RemoveOldServiceKeys".6) Right-clicked on my newly created custom action and chose "Custom ActionWizard..."7) Wizard appeared. On first dialog, I added a comment and clicked "Next >"8) On second dialog I chose "Run InstallScript code". Location option wasgrayed out. Then clicked "Next >"9) On third dialog, I chose RemoveOldServiceKeys from the drop-down. Targetoption was grayed out. Then clicked "Next >".10) On fourth dialog, left everything at default settings (Wait for actionto finish executing, ignore return code, Execute immediately, alwaysexecute), then clicked "Next >".11) Clicked "Finish". Custom action was created, with Type 65536, Sourcelisted as "RemoveOldServiceKeys", and Target empty.12) Clicked on "Sequences". Went to "Execute" sequence under"Installation".13) Right-clicked on "Execute" and chose "Insert..."14) Chose "Custom Actions" in the drop-down. Found my action in the list,highlighted it and clicked OK.15) Positioned my action in the right part of the execute sequence.16) When I build though, I get the following error:** Error -1024: File RemoveOldServiceKeys not found. Cannot stream the fileinto the Binary tableIt's obviously thinking that my action is actually an external executable.Please tell me what I am doing wrong. It seems like I'm following all thelogical steps exactly! I'm very new to InstallShield, so I'm hoping one ofyou experts will have run into this problem before.Thanks in advance for your time!Sincerely,Carl YoungbloodSoftware EngineerLegato Systems, Inc.801-437-8187

Right, but the problem is that we have only conjecture about what parts are true, which parts are false/wrong, and what parts are conjecture. :)"E-fuses are used more like jumpers of yore (only shrunk to be on the die) than like the ones in your fusebox in the garage. We architect our software and arrange our manufacturing flows accordingly. (Beyond that level of description, I'm not sure where I cross into proprietary information, so I'll stop there.)"No worries; I respect that (I used to work at a large hard drive manufacturer for two summers). It sounds a lot like this is a plausible scenario."The fact that the device is recoverable by a reflash implies that nothing truly permanent has happened to the device."Well, no. Strictly speaking, Mot says"If a device attempts to boot with unapproved software, it will go into recovery mode, and can re-boot once approved software is re-installed."How the re-installation can occur is completely unspecified. It could conceivably be that the OP was correct that the software can fuse a selected part in order to require you to go back to the shop and get a new chip, or get a second fuse blown for you (perhaps something like DVD drives do where you get five free reflashes at the store and then it's clear you're a baddie and you have to buy a new phone (or even just a new chip)) It's hardware/software; the primary constraints are laws, consumer (or customer, if they're like me and know and use the distinction) reaction and how much we can pack into a chip before it's too big/consumes too much power. Hooray for digital progress!"This mode should be the same mode the phone goes to if a legitimate update fails, say, due to a power glitch during the update." It *could* be the same, but we have only supposition."That's got nothing to do with the e-fuse question at hand, though. It just determines how you restore the phone once it's been flashed with unauthorized code."They might be unrelated. They might not be unrelated. We have no [b]data[/b], we have only supposition (and layer upon layer of it). There are definitely scenarios that could involve the fuse, even if the supposition that the fuse is permanently blown is true."Refusing to load unsigned code until a service center reinstalls it isn't nearly so malevolent as irreversibly destroying the phone."Malevolence is motivation and rather tangential to the questions at hand. Rather, the question is what the [i]problems[/i] to us would be. and how problematic having a phone be a brick until you get it to a service center depends on a lot of things, and notably how far and inconvenient it is to get to the service center. :)To summarize, my current position is that we need a lot more data before we can draw reliable conclusions about anything in this situation. Hopefully mot will be forthcoming with it. I'm very very glad you brought more data to the table. Despite not necessarily being directly transferable to the mot scenario, they're at least indicative about the state of current technology."I told them I didn't want to have to root my phone to be able to use it in the way that I want."I'll drink to that! (Is incidentally why I don't have an iphone; my mac fanatic friends/colleagues said, well just root it to get an xterm and ssh.. riiiiight. "Jailbreaking" is rather a poor metaphor; rather, it should be something like hostage-freeing perhaps, or something involving a raid on a property theft ring and getting your TV back. :) Kuhn: At Least Motorola Admits It Posted Jul 19, 2010 9:33 UTC (Mon) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

The engine of the software market is people's willingness to pay for software in its various forms. Software comes in the form of websites, a desktop applications, embedded systems, and hundreds of other forms. Payment comes in a lot forms too-- advertisements, royalties, commissions, etc.Game development pushes the hardware market forward, but so does Moore's law, Microsoft's latest operating system, the new Office suite, and hundreds of a lot of other things. Game development often requires specialized hardware that the rest of the market doesn't have, like $500 graphics cards. Also, these days, more and more game development happens on special platforms called consoles.> From the developer standpoint, I believe that nothing streamlines the OS > both API-wise and performance-wise better than listening to feedback that > your game developers give youReally, what is so great about game development? The codebases for games are usually finished as quickly as humanly possible and then abandoned. Buggy code is much more acceptable in a game than it would be in a payroll application, or a scientific application, or pretty much anywhere else.How many updates have you gotten for Grand Theft Auto 2 lately? Yeah, I thought so. None. But other applications written at the same period in time are still being updated and maintained.Also, if anything, game development has lagged behind the rest of the industry in adopting things like Microsoft's .NET environment, Java, or Ruby. Whether or not you like these things, they are the future of application-level software development.> from what I know, right now Android is a messBecause it supports multiple hardware platforms, it's "a mess"? It will just have to join other messy platforms like Win32, POSIX, and just about every other successful platform in the history of computing. Too bad it can't be a nice, clean, platform like the open moko or Apple Lisa where only one version was ever made (because they were huge failures.)The iPhone has multiple hardware revisions out now too. Some of them are faster than others. Some have higher resolutions. Deal with it. Game development as the engine of the software market Posted Jul 18, 2010 16:52 UTC (Sun) by jrn (subscriber, #64214) [Link]

2ff7e9595c