fbreseal.exe self-deletes
Eberhard Schefold
reboot. Is that the expected behaviour? And if so, why? Although the
documentation doesn't state it anywhere clearly, I was under the impression
that fbreseal can be called after repeated reboots if necessary, e.g. for
different versions of a master disk. Of course I can make a copy each time,
but the self-deletion gives me the feeling that I'm doing something wrong.
I would be glad if I could get confirmation that it's indeed OK to call
fbreseal, reboot, and call fbreseal again repeatedly if necessary.
Simon Greener
make a copy and keep it tucked away for later use. Use Google to look for
FBRESEAL posts to confirm this.
Simon Greener
simon DOT greener AT altecdata DOT com
Eberhard Schefold
> I seem to remember other's mentioning this in this NG. I think you
> need to make a copy and keep it tucked away for later use.
Hello Simon,
thanks for your reply. I _think_ so, too, but what I'm actually looking for
is a more reliable statement or link to documentation which confirms that
what I think is actually correct.
> Use Google
> to look for FBRESEAL posts to confirm this.
I was only able to find postings by people who "think", as we do ...
Howard Smith
you set system cloning tools to a reseal phase of 12000
(default) it deletes it for you after a reseal.
Sysprep on standard windows works in exactly the same
way, it is deleted after a reseal. I assume that it is
deleted so that an end user cannot play with it !!!
Howard
>.
>
Andy Allred [MS]
*again* after you shipped the device, right? If you want to control the
cloning phase, set the reseal phase to '0' in the system cloning tool's
advanced properties and run it manually after you've made your final tweaks
to the image.
Andy
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Eberhard Schefold" <eberhard...@de.bosch.com> wrote in message
news:Xns931B93074...@10.4.13.18...
Eberhard Schefold
> This is expected, you don't want your customer's being able to reseal
> *again* after you shipped the device, right?
Hello Andy,
thanks for your reply. It doesn't make much sense for the customer, yes,
but I wouldn't mind, actually. Or should I?
> If you want to control
> the cloning phase, set the reseal phase to '0' in the system cloning
> tool's advanced properties and run it manually after you've made your
> final tweaks to the image.
Yes, thanks, that's what I do. I'm obviously having problems to make
myself clear, sorry. My question is whether a sequence
boot the image
make modifications
make a copy of fbreseal.exe
run fbseal
shut down
use the image as a master for version 1 (without booting this image)
boot the image
make modifications
make a copy of fbreseal.exe
run fbseal
shut down
use the image as a master for version 2 (without booting this image)
...
and so forth will result in good versions 2 and up, or whether there will
be a problem caused by the repeated re-sealing.
Eberhard Schefold
> This is the correct way for reseal to work. In fact if
> you set system cloning tools to a reseal phase of 12000
> (default) it deletes it for you after a reseal.
Hello Howard,
thanks for your reply. I agree, it's just consequent that way.
Andy Allred [MS]
image? You clone it *after* you have the image in a golden state. I guess
what you're doing will work, but sure is kind of hacky and is not what is
intended by sysprep/systemcloning.
Andy
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Eberhard Schefold" <eb...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:Xns931BC3716...@62.153.159.134...
Eberhard Schefold
> Uh, why do you need to rerun the cloning process so many times on the
> same image? You clone it *after* you have the image in a golden state.
We install and configure our own software onto the XP Embedded image,
then make a Beta 1. We duplicate this Beta 1 onto different machines, and
test. We identify problems, modify the master, make a Beta 2 and test
again, and iterate if necessary until we've achieved the "Golden State".
When we have achieved this state, it would be convenient to use this very
image as the master, and not have to repeat the modification steps on a
new XP image. Therefore my question. Of course, if you tell me we
shouldn't do that, we won't, but generally I don't see yet what's wrong
with this procedure. We could run fbreseal individually on the test
machines then, but that's of course one step off reality.
But consider the following:
get the image into a "Golden State"
switch the GUI to English
run fbseal
shut down
copy the image and use it as English master
boot the image
switch the GUI to Danish
run fbseal
shut down
copy the image and use it as Danish master
...
Is this idea really so hacky and weird? Looks easier to me than having to
maintain individual versions in Target designer and having to install and
configure your own software for every language version. Again of course,
if you tell me that's the way to go, we will.
Eberhard Schefold
> Is this idea really so hacky and weird?
Yes it is. :-)
> Looks easier to me than having
> to maintain individual versions in Target designer and having to
> install and configure your own software for every language version.
I guess I should have thought twice. Of course you can prepare the
different language versions without fbseal, and run fbseal after each
version boots again. It's a little more work than repeated fbseal on the
master, but you still wouldn't have to install and configure the own
software on each version (which would be the much more work).