Monday, July 27, 2009

Odd messages while upgrading my Client to 8.5FP1

Anyone seen these errors? Oddly enough it says it completed fine, but the log file shows a long list of "missing items".

first error message

second error message

That's okay, because as this says it did complete, but properly? Not so sure.

not quite completed


  1. Nope, on the Mac, it was a SMOOOOOOOTH process :-)

  2. It was smooth too, if I hadn't caught these on screen.

  3. Well - the installation did complete successfully in that it didn't crash out. So the meaning of the partial installation followed by the success message is that the base install worked fine but that some of the features did not provision as expected. A bit like when you upgrade Firefox successfully but some of the plugin fail to update. As to whether it can be considered a "good" installation, that obviously depends on what bits weren't provisioned and whether you need them or not, but in my experience it normally means I won't trust it. Probably best to do a clean install and then apply the fixpack.

  4. Andy, I got that, but this begs the question, what is it trying to do to my plugins!
    Or whatever it wants to play with.
    An upgrade should not upset what is already installed.
    Grumble, grumble

  5. I've received these as well but only when using the runas using smartupgrade and then I'm getting them consistently. However if I uninstall the FP and apply it again using SmartUpgrade it works fine with no error messages.

    Running it with verbose logging I see a lot of these in the log file but not quite sure what to make of them:
    1: 28.07.2009 13:44:11 CActionsCommon/GetProperty: WARNING - 'MsiGetProperty[RCPLOCALE]' failed with return code '234' - More data is available.

  6. Another one that I'm getting when using SmartUpgrade is "Can not open LotusInstall.log.log" even if I specify a log file to be used.

    All these messages has to be Ok'ed then it say the FP1 has successfully installed.

  7. Was on a call today about this issue with internal IBM people, not specifically my error, but the way FixPacks get installed.
    Will post more if more info comes out.