Can you build a new version of an exe without having to rebuild its installer afterwards?

[crnbaker]

I'm currently testing a LabVIEW-built exe on a PC without LabVIEW installed. Each time I go back to the development PC to fix a bug / change something, and then rebuild the executable, it seems I also have to rebuild its installer which takes a significant amount of time.

Is there a way to rebuild an executable without having to rebuild its installer? Or a way to tell the installer it doesn't need to be completely rebuilt, but rather just needs to look at the new executable?

After writing this out, I've realised there probably isn't a way to do it, but it's worth a shot.

Christian.

[Taki1999 · Accepted solution]

If you remove all of the additional installers from your build spec, you should end up with a pretty compact installer to build.

I typically have a build spec for the full install and then a build spec for the patch install.  When I'm just making a small change and know that the application will only be distributed to a computer that already has the EXE, I just rebuild the patch installer.

For major releases, I'll rebuild the full installer.

[TiTou]

I think the answer is no, if your EXE has changed you have to re-build the installer and yes it's very long and as far as I know there is no way to tell the compiler : "hey, I only made a very small fix in the EXE so don't re-build everything just update the EXE in the install". That would be cool though!

That said when you're just testing your EXE's functionality, if you have a "clean" computer (with no NI software installed on it) to test you installer, you don't need to uninstall and re-run an installer if you'vre made small changes to your EXE, in that case you can just replace the EXE.

Hope this helps

[aeastet]

If you have installed the program once all you need to do is replace the exe on the hard drive. You do not need to reinstall the program.

[crnbaker]

Thanks for this, I now have a second 'patch' installer without the RT and DAQmx libraries which builds really quickly. Nice and simple.

Christian.

[crnbaker]

Hi Tim,

I suppose manually replacing the exe would probably work, but I have a nice thing going on where my developer PC is building the installer and exe to a network drive, and then target PC simply runs the installer form the same network drive in order to update the exe on its internal drive to the latest version (so no dragging and dropping). I like it like this because it will be easy for the user to update to newer versions when the software is finally released.

So yeah, a separate 'patcher' installer works great, which I have a shortcut to on the target PC's desktop.

Christian.

[aeastet]

I have a proram that does this as well. That is when the IT group doesn't change things and shut me down. They are always changing permissions and access to drives. It is enought to make you crazy at times.

[MoReese]

I understand what Taki is saying, but I don't see the need to "update" the installer after making changes to an .exe; especially if it's going to a PC that already has the RTE installed. Later, if I have to do a build, it will incorporate the current changes to the .exe.

[Taki1999]

---

@MoReese wrote:

I understand what Taki is saying, but I don't see the need to "update" the installer after making changes to an .exe; especially if it's going to a PC that already has the RTE installed. Later, if I have to do a build, it will incorporate the current changes to the .exe.

---

Yeah.  I agree that at times it's a matter of personal preference.  The majority of the users that I distribute my applications to prefer to have instructions that are "Insert USB stick, Open Folder, Click setup.exe and follow prompts." 

I've tried a few times to distribute just the EXE but I usually end up on the phone explaining where to put the EXE and it just doesn't seem as clean.

In my opinion, it's just easier to create installers. 

[MoReese]

---

@Taki1999 wrote:

---

@MoReese wrote:

I understand what Taki is saying, but I don't see the need to "update" the installer after making changes to an .exe; especially if it's going to a PC that already has the RTE installed. Later, if I have to do a build, it will incorporate the current changes to the .exe.

---

 

In my opinion, it's just easier to create installers. 

---

Yes, in your circumstance it would be.  For me, I only have to worry about internal customers, so I am the only one that does the install;  therefore, I don't have to worry so much about the details of the installation.